Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 00:18:32 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Nathan Hawkins <utsl@quic.net>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: syscall changes to deal with 32->64 changes. Message-ID: <20020508071832.GA7568@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20020508062837.696D738CC@overcee.wemm.org> References: <3CD823E8.2010809@quic.net> <20020508062837.696D738CC@overcee.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 11:28:37PM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote: > > > > > >Why? Just to follow the NIH herd? The EI_OSABI and EI_ABIVERSION fields > > >were in the gABI spec before anyone started using .note sections for > > >this. > > > > > > > > Because AFAICS, it's a defacto, unwritten standard. Even if it violates > > spec. > > > > NIH is a matter of perspective. FreeBSD could be considered to be in NIH > > mode, because the other ELF based systems use a different method. > > I seem to recall that NetBSD invented .note.ABI-tag and pushed it back > to the binutils folks. Interestingly, the LSB (Linux Standards Body) version 1.1.0 has it documented as Linux specific. My whole take on the ELF aspect is that we should use EI_OSABI and EI_ABIVERSION and stop trying to be more compliant than the standard allows. It's basicly a mess and nobody is truely compliant anyway. The new draft has EI_OSABI and EI_ABIVERSION documented for years, so I think we can speculatively use it. If our toolchain throws in a .note.ABI-tag section than so be it; we might as well give it sensible contents. I don't think we should use it as the primary means to select the ABI though. FWIW, -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020508071832.GA7568>