Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 14:28:03 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: sos@FreeBSD.org Cc: terry@lambert.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Linux compat issue(s) Message-ID: <199610152128.OAA01611@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199610152041.WAA02300@SandBox.CyberCity.dk> from "sos@FreeBSD.org" at Oct 15, 96 10:41:18 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> How come that took so long Terry ?? Heh. Instantly isn't fast enough for you? ;-). > So do we in the dynamically linked case, almost all ELF implemetations > on the x86 platform use different named/located interpreters. > It is only the statically linked binaries that is the problem. > Linux has the same problems we do, they have implemented another=20 > hack than the one I suggest, just their method isn't very robust > but they're used to that, right :) ELF has a general problem with binary type recognition. One way would be to steal codes from CPU type and distinguish with magic number, or vice versa. It should also be noted that it's kind of silly to follow the SVR4 EABI if you don't have the same trap entry points (ie: reallly follow it). 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?199610152128.OAA01611>