From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jan  3 10:41:19 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id KAA29603
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 10:41:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA29597
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 10:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28333; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 11:42:12 -0700
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 11:42:12 -0700
From: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199601031842.LAA28333@rocky.sri.MT.net>
To: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD hackers)
Subject: Re: Demand loading (Re: FreeBSD, Zappa & PCI)
In-Reply-To: <199601031644.RAA20642@uriah.heep.sax.de>
References: <7741.820667981@time.cdrom.com>
	<199601031644.RAA20642@uriah.heep.sax.de>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

J. Wunsch writes:
> As Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > 
> > > Can someone explain why we need ELF or its equivalent for this
> > > to be feasible? 
> 
> It supports any number of file sections.  Stock a.out supports only
> text, data, bss (and symbols).
> 
> > I don't think we do at all.
> 
> I don't understand your antipathy against ELF.  Why still fiddling
> with an ancient crock (a.out) when a more modern definition is already
> there?

I think that part of my reason for avoiding ELF is becuase we don't need
to move to yet another file format just as we are starting to support
legacy applications and such.

However, I don't think it would be bad if we actually had support for
running ELF binaries as part of the system.  It's just not something I'd
like to see become the standard binary format.


Nate