From owner-freebsd-ppc Thu Jun 8 7:52:38 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC8B37B8C9 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 07:52:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Received: from localhost (narvi@localhost) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA91987; Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:52:06 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:52:06 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi To: Richard.Brooksby@pobox.com Cc: Mark Peek , freebsd-ppc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: the abi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ppc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 Richard.Brooksby@pobox.com wrote: > At 2000-06-08 16:20 +0200, Narvi wrote: > > > > I haven't researched this at all so this may be a duplicate of > >1-4. How about: > > > 5) Apple Darwin compatible ABI > >> > >> This would allow sharing of tools and might even have some chance of, > >> should I say, binary compatibility. :-) Besides, Apple might be the largest > >> supplier of FreeBSD technology when they start shipping MacOS X. Being > >> compatible would be a "Good Thing (tm)" while having a different standard > > > would fragment FreeBSD. > > > >But - what do they use? Esp. as I haven't been able to connect to the > >darwin site during ~ a week now (and that's why it's not listed). It is > >probably sysv4, though. > > I don't think such an important decision should be made according to > whether or not a particular host is up or down or whether a network > connection happens to be working at the moment. Darwin's ABI should > be on the list for consideration. You are readying way too much into what I said. And, just in case anybody *STILL* did not notice it: I will not be making the decision. I am but trying to get somebody with the experience and knowledge (and willingness to step forward) to make such. > > >And I don't think a different standard would 'fragment' FreeBSD. > > That depends how much development has to be duplicated, and how many > parts of the system have to be maintained in parallel. For example, > if GDB depends on the ABI then do we have to maintain two variants of > GDB: one for FreeBSD/PPC and one for Darwin/PPC? > Why would we be maintaining the gdb for darwin? Besides, gdb (and the rest of binutils) already support 1-3. > What's the list of FreeBSD components that would have to be > fragmented like this? The length of the list tells you something > about the cost of the choice of ABI. > Errmmm... > Personally, I think the ABI should be chosen to minimize porting and > maintenance effort and maximize stability. To me that means choosing > one that's either already well established or will become well > established. Darwin's is a good candidate because Apple will be > putting it on every Mac before much longer. > The ABI should be selected for it's technical merrits, imho. > Which of the other ABIs you've listed is well established? > All except for 4 (which doesn't even exist yet). It is clear even with a casual look at the list. Sander To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ppc" in the body of the message