Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 09:01:44 +0100 (MET) From: grog@lemis.de (Greg Lehey) To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD Hackers) Subject: Re: elm problem - "solved" Message-ID: <199511180801.JAA16694@allegro.lemis.de> In-Reply-To: <199511180023.RAA06399@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Nov 17, 95 05:23:24 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert writes: > > > >I really have great difficulty understanding why this change was made. > > >It means that old FreeBSD and BSD/386 binaries won't work correctly > > >under FreeBSD or BSD/OS Versions 2. I can't see any advantage at all > > >in this change. Grrrr. > > > > They wouldn't have worked anyway, because off_t was smaller. Apparently > > 4.4 took this breakage as an opportunity to improve the layout of > > `struct flock'. For some reason, there are no compatibility syscalls for > > fcntl() or flock() like there are for lseek(), mmap(), and other syscalls > > affected by the off_t change. It is too late to fix this now, because > > splitting the syscalls would break all 4.4 binaries that use them. > > Why not use an aternate call table ala execution class for ABI support > for IBCS2, Linux, etc.? How are you going to distinguish between the objects? In the case of ibcs2 and Linux, the object files have different magic. Not so in the case of old BSD objects. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511180801.JAA16694>