[RFC][PATCH] powerpc/64be: use ELFv2 ABI for big endian kernels

[Michael Ellerman]

Nicholas Piggin <npiggin at gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 17:17:16 -0600
> Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 09:22:16AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> > >> >> Question, are there any fundamental reasons we shouldn't use the ELFv2
>> > >> >> ABI to build big endian kernels if the compiler supports it?  
>> > >> >
>> > >> > No one uses ELFv2 for BE in production, and it isn't thoroughly tested
>> > >> > at all, not even regularly tested.  "Not supported", as far as GCC is
>> > >> > concerned (or any of the distros AFAIK).  
>> > >> 
>> > >> Is this actually unsupported by gcc?  
>> > >
>> > > It may or may not work.  We of course try to keep it working, or make
>> > > it work if it doesn't now.  But it isn't regularly tested, and it isn't
>> > > a target that is considered for the release criteria (see
>> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/criteria.html -- powerpc64{,le}-linux, i.e.
>> > > ABIv1 for BE, ABIv2 for LE).  
>> > 
>> > It doesn't actually say that though. It just says
>> > powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu. So how is someone, say the musl folks,
>> > supposed to know that BE ABIv2 is not supported?  
>> 
>> Because their target is powerpc64*-*-linux-musl instead?  It is not on
>> the release criteria list, it is not something we make any claims about.
>> 
>> How would you know -m32 -mlittle is not well tested at all?  It is in much
>> the same boat: unusual combinations of options, and unusual configurations,
>> are not well tested.  You have to build a separate C library just to get
>> started with it, that should tell you there are some rough waters ahead!
>> 
>> Which isn't to say you should not do this -- just think twice before
>> doing so.  And wear a life vest.
>
> Other than curiosity, only two reasons for the kernel to enable it:
> either it helps end users, or it allows us to get rid of elfv1 support
> (eventually). Both would require gcc to have some base amount of testing.

I think it might be worth adding as option, as long as it's not too
intrusive. We could then put it in our CI and at least keep an eye on
whether it continues to work.

Using ABIv1 does have user visible effects, ie. dot symbols show up in
traces and so on. So getting rid of that would be nice.

Having said that, perf and other tools are currently built to assume
BE==ABIv1, so breaking that assumption would possibly cause more
trouble.

I guess the other question is when did ABIv2 land in the toolchain, ie.
how many years do we have to wait until we can mandate it.

cheers