diff --git a/design/27539-internal-abi.md b/design/27539-internal-abi.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..dc2dcb5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/design/27539-internal-abi.md
@@ -0,0 +1,463 @@
+# Proposal: Create an undefined internal calling convention
+
+Author(s): Austin Clements
+
+Last updated: 2019-01-14
+
+Discussion at https://golang.org/issue/27539.
+
+## Abstract
+
+Go's current calling convention interferes with several significant
+optimizations, such as [register
+passing](https://golang.org/issue/18597) (a potential 5% win).
+Despite the obvious appeal of these optimizations, we've encountered
+significant roadblocks to their implementation.
+While Go's calling convention isn't covered by the [Go 1 compatibility
+promise](https://golang.org/doc/go1compat), it's impossible to write
+Go assembly code without depending on it, and there are many important
+packages that use Go assembly.
+As a result, much of Go's calling convention is effectively public and
+must be maintained in a backwards-compatible way.
+
+We propose a way forward based on having multiple calling conventions.
+We propose maintaining the existing calling convention and introducing
+a new, private calling convention that is explicitly not
+backwards-compatible and not accessible to assembly code, with a
+mechanism to keep different calling convention transparently
+inter-operable.
+This same mechanism can be used to introduce other public, stable
+calling conventions in the future, but the details of that are outside
+the scope of this proposal.
+
+This proposal is *not* about any specific new calling convention.
+It's about *enabling* new calling conventions to work in the existing
+Go ecosystem.
+This is one step in a longer-term plan.
+
+
+## Background
+
+Language environments depend on *application binary interfaces* (ABIs)
+to define the machine-level conventions for operating within that
+environment.
+One key aspect of an ABI is the *calling convention*, which defines
+how function calls in the language operate at a machine-code level.
+
+Go's calling convention specifies how functions pass argument values
+and results (on the stack), which registers have fixed functions
+(e.g., R10 on ARM is the "g" register) or may be clobbered by a call
+(all non-fixed function registers), and how to interact with stack
+growth, the scheduler, and the garbage collector.
+
+Go's calling convention as of Go 1.11 is simple and nearly universal
+across platforms, but also inefficient and inflexible.
+It is rife with opportunities for improving performance.
+For example, experiments with [passing arguments and results in
+registers](https://golang.org/issue/18597) suggest a 5% performance
+win.
+Propagating register clobbers up the call graph could avoid
+unnecessary stack spills.
+Keeping the stack bound in a fixed register could eliminate two
+dependent memory loads on every function entry on x86.
+Passing dynamic allocation scopes could reduce heap allocations.
+
+And yet, even though the calling convention is invisible to Go
+programs, almost every substantive change we've attempted has been
+stymied because changes break existing Go *assembly* code.
+While there's relatively little Go assembly (roughly 170 kLOC in
+public GitHub repositories<sup>*</sup>), it tends to lie at the heart
+of important packages like crypto and numerical libraries.
+
+This proposal operates within two key constraints:
+
+1. We can't break existing assembly code, even though it isn't
+   technically covered by Go 1 compatibility.
+   There's too much of it and it's too important.
+   Hence, we can't change the calling convention used by existing
+   assembly code.
+
+2. We can't depend on a transition periods after which existing
+   assembly would break.
+   Too much code simply doesn't get updated, or if it does, it doesn't
+   get re-vendored.
+   Hence, it's not enough to give people a transition path to a new
+   calling convention and some time.
+   Existing code must continue to work.
+
+This proposal resolves this tension by introducing multiple calling
+conventions.
+Initially, we propose two: one is stable, documented, and codifies the
+rules of the current calling convention; the other is unstable,
+internal, and may change from release to release.
+
+<sup>*</sup> This counts non-comment, non-whitespace lines of code in
+unique files. It excludes vendored source and source with a "Go
+Authors" copyright notice.
+
+
+## Proposal
+
+We propose introducing a second calling convention.
+
+* `ABI0` is the current calling convention, which passes arguments and
+  results on the stack, clobbers all registers on calls, and has a few
+  platform-dependent fixed registers.
+
+* `ABIInternal` is unstable and may change from release to release.
+  Initially, it will be identical to `ABI0`, but `ABIInternal` opens
+  the door for changes.
+
+Once we're happy with `ABIInternal`, we may "snapshot" it as a new
+stable `ABI1`, allowing assembly code to be written against the
+presumably faster, new calling convention.
+This would not eliminate `ABIInternal`, as `ABIInternal` could later
+diverge from `ABI1`, though `ABI1` and `ABIInternal` may be identical
+for some time.
+
+A text symbol can provide different definitions for different ABIs.
+One of these will be the "native" implementation—`ABIInternal` for
+functions defined in Go and `ABI0` for functions defined in
+assembly—while the others will be "ABI wrappers" that simply translate
+to the ABI of the native implementation and call it.
+In the linker, each symbol is already identified with a (name,
+version) pair.
+The implementation will simply map ABIs to linker symbol versions.
+
+All functions defined in Go will be natively `ABIInternal`, and the Go
+compiler will assume all functions provide an `ABIInternal`
+implementation.
+Hence, all cross-package calls and all indirect calls (closure calls
+and interface method calls) will use `ABIInternal`.
+If the native implementation of the called function is `ABI0`, this
+will call a wrapper, which will call the `ABI0` implementation.
+For direct calls, if the compiler knows the target is a native `ABI0`
+function, it can optimize that call to use `ABI0` directly, but this
+is strictly an optimization.
+
+All functions defined in assembly will be natively `ABI0`, and all
+references to text symbols from assembly will use the `ABI0`
+definition.
+To introduce another stable ABI in the future, we would extend the
+assembly symbol syntax with a way to specify the ABI, but `ABI0` must
+be assumed for all unqualified symbols for backwards compatibility.
+
+In order to transparently bridge the two (or more) ABIs, we will
+extend the assembler with a mode to scan for all text symbol
+definitions and references in assembly code, and report these to the
+compiler.
+When these symbols are referenced or defined, respectively, from Go
+code in the same package, the compiler will use the type information
+available in Go declarations and function stubs to produce the
+necessary ABI wrapper definitions.
+
+The linker will check that all symbol references use the correct ABI
+and ultimately keep everything honest.
+
+
+## Rationale
+
+The above approach allows us to introduce an internal calling
+convention without any modifications to any safe Go code, or the vast
+majority of assembly-using packages.
+This is largely afforded by the extra build step that scans for
+assembly symbol definitions and references.
+
+There are two major trade-off axes that lead to different designs.
+
+### Implicit vs explicit
+
+Rather than implicitly scanning assembly code for symbol definitions
+and references, we could instead introduce pragma comments that users
+could use to explicitly inform the compiler of symbol ABIs.
+This would make these ABI boundaries evident in code, but would likely
+break many more existing packages.
+
+In order to keep any assembly-using packages working as-is, this
+approach would need default rules.
+For example, body-less function stubs would likely need to default to
+`ABI0`.
+Any Go functions called from assembly would still need explicit
+annotations, though such calls are rare.
+This would cover most assembly-using packages, but function stubs are
+also used for Go symbols pushed across package boundaries using
+`//go:linkname`.
+For link-named symbols, a pragma would be necessary to undo the
+default `ABI0` behavior, and would depend on how the target function
+was implemented.
+
+Ultimately, there's no set of default rules that keeps all existing
+code working.
+Hence, this design proposes extracting symbols from assembly source to
+derive the correct ABIs in the vast majority of cases.
+
+### Wrappers vs single implementation
+
+In this proposal, a single function can provide multiple entry-points
+for different calling conventions.
+One of these is the "native" implementation and the others are
+intended to translate the calling convention and then invoke the
+native implementation.
+
+An alternative would be for each function to provide a single calling
+convention and require all calls to that function to follow that
+calling convention.
+Other languages use this approach, such as C (e.g.,
+`fastcall`/`stdcall`/`cdecl`) and Rust (`extern "C"`, etc).
+This works well for direct calls, but for direct calls it's also
+possible to compile away this proposal's ABI wrapper.
+However, it dramatically complicates indirect calls since it requires
+the calling convention to become *part of the type*.
+Hence, in Go, we would either have to extend the type system, or
+declare that only `ABIInternal` functions can be used in closures and
+interface satisfaction, both of which are less than ideal.
+
+Using ABI wrappers has the added advantage that calls to a Go function
+from Go can use the fastest available ABI, while still allowing calls
+via the stable ABI from assembly.
+
+### When to generate wrappers
+
+Finally, there's flexibility in this design around when exactly to
+generate ABI wrappers.
+In the current proposal, ABI wrappers are always generated in the
+package where both the definition and the reference to a symbol
+appear.
+However, ABI wrappers can be generated anywhere Go type information is
+available.
+
+For example, the compiler could generate an `ABIInternal`→`ABI0`
+wrapper when an `ABI0` function is stored in a closure or method
+table, regardless of which package that happens in.
+And the compiler could generate an `ABI0`→`ABIInternal` wrapper when
+it encounters an `ABI0` reference from assembly by finding the
+function's type either in the current package or via export info from
+another package.
+
+
+## Compatibility
+
+This proposed change does not affect the functioning of any safe Go
+code.
+It can affect code that goes outside the [compatibility
+guidelines](https://golang.org/doc/go1compat), but is designed to
+minimize this impact.
+Specifically:
+
+1. Unsafe Go code can observe the calling convention, though doing so
+   requires violating even the [allowed uses of
+   unsafe.Pointer](https://golang.org/pkg/unsafe/#Pointer).
+   This does arise in the internal implementation of the runtime and
+   in cgo, both of which will have to be adjusted when we actually
+   change the calling convention.
+
+2. Cross-package references where the definition and the reference are
+   different ABIs may no longer link.
+
+There are various ways to form cross-package references in Go, though
+all depends on `//go:linkname` (which is explicitly unsafe) or
+complicated assembly symbol naming.
+Specifically, the following types of cross-package references may no
+longer link:
+
+<table>
+<thead>
+<tr>
+<th colspan="2" rowspan="2"></th>
+<th colspan="4">def</th>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<th>Go</th>
+<th>Go+push</th>
+<th>asm</th>
+<th>asm+push</th>
+</tr>
+</thead>
+<tbody>
+<tr>
+<th rowspan="4">ref</th>
+<th>Go</th>      <td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✗¹</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<th>Go+pull</th> <td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✗¹</td><td>✗¹</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<th>asm</th>     <td>✓</td><td>✗²</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<th>asm+xref</th><td>✗²</td><td>✗²</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td>
+</tr>
+</tbody></table>
+
+In this table "push" refers to a symbol that is implemented in one
+package, but its symbol name places it in a different package.
+In Go this is accomplished with `//go:linkname` and in assembly this
+is accomplished by explicitly specifying the package in a symbol name.
+There are a total of two instances of "asm+push" on all of public
+GitHub, both of which are already broken under current rules.
+
+"Go+pull" refers to when an unexported symbol defined in one package
+is referenced from another package via `//go:linkname`.
+"asm+xref" refers to any cross-package symbol reference from assembly.
+The vast majority of "asm+xref" references in public GitHub
+repositories are to a small set of runtime package functions like
+`entersyscall`, `exitsyscall`, and `memmove`.
+These are serious abstraction violations, but they're also easy to
+keep working.
+
+There are two general groups of link failures in the above table,
+indicated by superscripts.
+
+In group 1, the compiler will create an `ABIInternal` reference to a
+symbol that may only provide an `ABI0` implementation.
+This can be worked-around by ensuring there's a Go function stub for
+the symbol in the defining package.
+For "asm" definitions this is usually the case anyway, and "asm+push"
+definitions do not happen in practice outside the runtime.
+In all of these cases, type information is available at the reference
+site, so the compiler could record assembly ABI definitions in the
+export info and produce the stubs in the referencing package, assuming
+the defining package is imported.
+
+In group 2, the assembler will create an `ABI0` reference to a symbol
+that may only provide an `ABIInternal` implementation.
+In general, calls from assembly to Go are quite rare because they
+require either stack maps for the assembly code, or for the Go
+function and everything it calls recursively to be `//go:nosplit`
+(which is, in general, not possible to guarantee because of
+compiler-inserted calls).
+This can be worked-around by creating a dummy reference from assembly
+in the defining package.
+For "asm+xref" references to exported symbols, it would be possible to
+address this transparently by using export info to construct the ABI
+wrapper when compiling the referer package, again assuming the
+defining package is imported.
+
+The situations that cause these link failures are vanishingly rare in
+public code corpora (outside of the standard library itself), all
+depend on unsafe code, and all have reasonable workarounds.
+Hence, we conclude that the potential compatibility issues created by
+this proposal are worth the upsides.
+
+### Calling runtime.panic* from assembly
+
+One compatibility issue we found in public GitHub repositories was
+references from assembly to `runtime.panic*` functions.
+These calls to an unexported function are an obvious violation of
+modularity, but also a violation of the Go ABI because the callers
+invariably lack a stack map.
+If a stack growth or GC were to happen during this call, it would
+result in a fatal panic.
+
+In these cases, we recommend wrapping the assembly function in a Go
+function that performs the necessary checks and then calls the
+assembly function.
+Typically, this Go function will be inlined into its caller, so this
+will not introduce additional call overhead.
+
+For example, take a function that computes the pair-wise sums of two
+slices and requires its arguments to be the same length:
+
+```asm
+// func AddVecs(x, y []float64)
+TEXT ·AddVecs(SB), NOSPLIT, $16
+	// ... check lengths, put panic message on stack ...
+    CALL runtime·panic(SB)
+```
+
+This should instead be written as a Go function that uses language
+facilities to panic, followed by a call to the assembly
+implementation that implements the operation:
+
+```go
+func AddVecs(x, y []float64) {
+    if len(x) != len(y) {
+        panic("slices must be the same length")
+    }
+    addVecsAsm(x, y)
+}
+```
+
+In this example, `AddVecs` is small enough that it will be inlined, so
+there's no additional overhead.
+
+
+## Implementation
+
+Austin Clements will implement this proposal for Go 1.12.
+This will allow the ABI split to soak for a release while the two
+calling conventions are in fact identical.
+Assuming that goes well, we can move on to changing the internal
+calling convention in Go 1.13.
+
+Since both calling conventions will initially be identical, the
+implementation will initially use "ABI aliases" rather than full ABI
+wrappers.
+ABI aliases will be fully resolved by the Go linker, so in the final
+binary every symbol will still have one implementation and all calls
+(regardless of call ABI) will resolve to that implementation.
+
+The rough implementation steps are as follows:
+
+1. Reserve space in the linker's symbol version numbering to represent
+   symbol ABIs.
+   Currently, all non-static symbols have version 0, so any linker
+   code that depends on this will need to be updated.
+
+2. Add a `-gensymabis` flag to `cmd/asm` that scans assembly sources
+   for text symbol definitions and references and produces a "symbol
+   ABIs" file rather than assembling the code.
+
+3. Add a `-symabis` flag to `cmd/compile` that accepts this symbol
+   ABIs file.
+
+4. Update `cmd/go`, `cmd/dist`, and any other mini-build systems in
+   the standard tree to invoke `asm` in `-gensymabis` mode and feed
+   the result to `compile`.
+
+5. Add support for recording symbol ABIs and ABI alias symbols to the
+   object file format.
+
+6. Modify `cmd/link` to resolve ABI aliases.
+
+7. Modify `cmd/compile` to produce `ABIInternal` symbols for all Go
+   functions, produce `ABIInternal`→`ABI0` ABI aliases for Go
+   functions referenced from assembly, and produce
+   `ABI0`→`ABIInternal` ABI aliases for assembly functions referenced
+   from Go.
+
+Once we're ready to modify the internal calling convention, the first
+step will be to produce actual ABI wrappers.
+We'll then likely want to start with a simple change, such as putting
+the stack bound in a fixed register.
+
+
+## Open issues
+
+There are a few open issues in this proposal.
+
+1. How should tools that render symbols from object files (e.g., `nm`
+   and `objdump`) display symbol ABIs?
+   With ABI aliases, there's little need to show this (though it can
+   affect how a symbol is resolved), but with full ABI wrappers it
+   will become more pressing.
+   Ideally this would be done in a way that doesn't significantly
+   clutter the output.
+
+2. How do we represent symbols with different ABI entry-points in
+   platform object files, particularly in shared objects?
+   In the initial implementation using ABI aliases, we can simply
+   erase the ABI.
+   It may be that we need to use minor name mangling to encode the
+   symbol ABI in its name (though this does not have to affect the Go
+   symbol name).
+
+3. How should ABI wrappers and `go:nosplit` interact?
+   In general, the wrapper needs to be `go:nosplit` if and only if the
+   wrapped function is `go:nosplit`.
+   However, for assembly functions, the wrapper is generated by the
+   compiler and the compiler doesn't currently know whether the
+   assembly function is `go:nosplit`.
+   It could conservatively make wrappers for assembly functions
+   `go:nosplit`, or the toolchain could include that information in
+   the symabis file.