From owner-freebsd-ppc Thu Jun 8 7: 3:37 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6A937BFE9 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 07:03:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@whistle.com) Received: from [10.1.10.109] (PBG3.whistle.com [207.76.207.128]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA14422 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 07:03:30 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: mark@207.76.206.1 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 07:03:27 -0700 To: freebsd-ppc@FreeBSD.ORG From: Mark Peek Subject: Re: the abi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-ppc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 10:51 AM +0200 6/8/2000, Narvi wrote: >We have the chices of: > 1) the AIX/PowerOpen ABI > 2) the SYSV4 PPC ABI > 3) the EABI > 4) grow our own > >1) Really stinks >2) Stinks, but everybody uses it >3) Is a variation of 2) >4) Need not stink in principle. We need to tell the toolchain what it >looks like. > >1) is probably the worst, and I don't know the best. > >This way or other, how about somebody deciding something? I haven't researched this at all so this may be a duplicate of 1-4. How about: 5) Apple Darwin compatible ABI This would allow sharing of tools and might even have some chance of, should I say, binary compatibility. :-) Besides, Apple might be the largest supplier of FreeBSD technology when they start shipping MacOS X. Being compatible would be a "Good Thing (tm)" while having a different standard would fragment FreeBSD. Mark To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ppc" in the body of the message