Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 08:33:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Chet <ec0@s1.GANet.NET> To: "matthew c. mead" <mmead@Glock.COM> Cc: smpatel@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: possible 4th option? [Re: kern/1102] Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960422083115.9677A-100000@s1> In-Reply-To: <317B1566.41C67EA6@Glock.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, matthew c. mead wrote: > I was looking through your discussion on the difficulties of > differentiating a Linux ELF binary from a FreeBSD ELF binary. The 2nd > option you mention is the one in which you would use currently unused > bytes in the ELF e_ident tag. What you proposed for this method of > distinguishing the two different systems' binaries was to modify each > Linux executable so that it has an identification byte in it. Since at > this point we only (am I wrong here?) support Linux and FreeBSD ELF > binaries, wouldn't it be sufficient to have our ELF binary generation > utilities put an identifier for FreeBSD into the ELF binary as mentioned > above, and if that is detected, use the FreeBSD sysvec set, otherwise > assume the Linux sysvec set? > Hello Well how about Slowaris ELF binaries? Eric J. Chet (ejc@nasvr1.cb.att.com || ec0@ganet.net) Lucent Technologies, Bell Labs Innovations > > -matt > > -- > Matthew C. Mead > > mmead@Glock.COM > http://www.Glock.COM/~mmead/ >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOL.3.91.960422083115.9677A-100000>