Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 23:39:23 +0200 (MET DST) From: sos@FreeBSD.org To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Cc: sos@FreeBSD.org, terry@lambert.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Linux compat issue(s) Message-ID: <199610152139.XAA00198@SandBox.CyberCity.dk> In-Reply-To: <199610152128.OAA01611@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Oct 15, 96 02:28:03 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply to Terry Lambert who wrote:
>
> > How come that took so long Terry ??
>
> Heh. Instantly isn't fast enough for you? ;-).
Ah it took you several hours :)
> > 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.
Exactly, that my point...
> One way would be to steal codes from CPU type and distinguish with
> magic number, or vice versa.
Hmm, well, yes but that *could* break on other archs then..
> 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).
So right, why do we bother with ELF at all, we're no SVR4 (thank god)...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Søren Schmidt (sos@FreeBSD.org) FreeBSD Core Team
Even more code to hack -- will it ever end
..
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610152139.XAA00198>