Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:38:45 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: thorpej@nas.nasa.gov Cc: terry@lambert.org, jdp@polstra.com, dg@root.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ELF ABI tagging Message-ID: <199701230038.RAA22687@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199701230038.QAA20213@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> from "Jason Thorpe" at Jan 22, 97 04:38:30 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > For the people who define the ABI in the first place, or for the > > follow-on people (like us) who want to tweak it? > > > > Seriously, there's no real reson an ABI could not be standardized > > other than everyone wants to be the one to define the thing and > > thinks everyone else should follow the trail that they beat. > > Well... Setting the ABI in stone isn't terribly _interesting_. > Besides, I don't _like_ SVR4. :-) Neither do I. On the other hand, having commercial user applications for a UNIX desktop would be a general win for everyone, not just the SVR4 weenies trying to define the standard ABI in such a way as to cause the most catch-up work for their non-SVR4-licensed competition. I would be willing to trade strict ABI control for an extention interface to an ABI over which I have no direct control, and a lot of nice applications being available for purchase at the local Egghead Software or Software Etc., or Softsel, or... Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701230038.RAA22687>