Talk:Executable and Linkable Format

message: I added the reference to the TIS 1.1 spec and removed the {citation needed} tag from the first mention of the pages name in the lede. I was hoping to find some acknowledgement or explanation in the TIS 1.2 ELF specification referenced concerning the change from the name "Executable and Linkable Format", which is found throughout the TIS 1.1 specification, to "Executable and Linking Format". Does anyone know of a source of information for why and when the name was changed, and whether it was in fact officially changed by the TIS committee? DonaldLflr (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Linkable" to "Linking" Name Change from TIS 1.1 to TIS 1.2 

message: The example ELF header shown in the diagram is for a 32-bit architecture, so I think e_phoff field should have value 0x34, not 0x40. This would also require an adjustment in the "Program header table" part of the diagram (the heading before raw bytes of the section which currently reads "Offset:0x40/Address:0x8000040" should be changed to "Offset:0x34/Address:0x8000034"). 37.128.124.190 (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, 0x40 is correct. On the left side you can see the ph starts at the 65th byte. A program header does not always have to start after the ELF header, though it's very common. Not sure why the author added some padding bytes after the ELF header. INSANETAURUS (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong value of "e_phoff" in the attached diagram? 

message: ".shstrtab" is erroneously spelled as ".shrtrtab" in "SECTIONS' NAMES" and "SECTION HEADER TABLE" parts of the attached ELF format diagram. 37.128.124.190 (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Any string table section can be called anything, though some ELF analyzing tools might not work if an unconventional name is used. The sh_type member just has to be correct. INSANETAURUS (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo (".shrtrtab") in the attached diagram 

message: Since this is an encyclopedia and the ELF specifications are very readable, why is this respecifying the format instead of referencing the specification or embedding an archived copy (if its copyright allows) ? TristanDC (talk) 09:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Because most of our technical articles are terrible paraphrases of the manual, and this is no exception. It needs the reference content removed entirely and reformatted around the format's purpose and use, like proper articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   just used their first ever edit (though it might be , who just argued the same thing on my talk) to restore this under the non-rationale WP:USEFUL. As this isn't a compelling argument, I'll be removing it again in due course: this isn't a reference manual and anyone using it as such would be far better off using the real thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not 88.238.58.190. Without the attached diagram and the tables, I would have had no starting point for programming my own x86 assembler. Genuine specifications like the System V ABI do not include an example ELF binary, therefore the attached diagram was a very useful ressource. INSANETAURUS (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not a reference source, and anything here which is not directly associated with an actual source is user-generated and thus no more reliable than a random Wordpress blog. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The goal of Wikipedia is to benefit its readers. Nothing on the ELF page can be seen as a manual or an article about how to create ELF binaries. I obviously did not soley use Wikipedia to learn about ELF binaries, just as a starting point. Your edit to remove the images and tables on the ELF page made the page less beneficial. I do agree, however, that the ELF page is a bit bloated. INSANETAURUS (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, no. How useful something is is not the arbiter of inclusion. It can just as easily be used as a starting point by linking to the reference documents rather than by trying to act as a manual in its own right. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to act as manual ≠ actual manual. Your edit removed the 'Specifications' section even though no one complained about that section. INSANETAURUS (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like a fraction of a specification instead of just including the specification documents