From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jan 22 16:40:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA12866 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:40:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA12810 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:40:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id RAA22579; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:22:41 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199701230022.RAA22579@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: ELF ABI tagging To: thorpej@nas.nasa.gov Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:22:41 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, jdp@polstra.com, dg@root.com, hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199701222340.PAA19723@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> from "Jason Thorpe" at Jan 22, 97 03:40:36 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > That's actually supposed to be a feature: it is not permitted to have > > more than one ABI. > > Unfortunately, it's not really practical. For the people who define the ABI in the first place, or for the follow-on people (like us) who want to tweak it? Seriously, there's no real reson an ABI could not be standardized other than everyone wants to be the one to define the thing and thinks everyone else should follow the trail that they beat. Frankly, I have little sympathy for the forces which have caused me to be unable to run an x86 UNIX binary on any UNIX or UNIX clone system, regardless of vendor. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.