Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:07:01 -0400 From: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek <jeffpc@josefsipek.net> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: COMPAT_FREEBSD<ancient> Message-ID: <aM1HZfxnBeQLIYpZ@satis> In-Reply-To: <aMsRp8meBz7G8DbE@kib.kiev.ua> References: <aMlZu48yxBX0k6Pe@satis> <aMlg8FWoZCe5ibam@kib.kiev.ua> <aMsMyHevBpAraa2m@hvm> <aMsRp8meBz7G8DbE@kib.kiev.ua>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 22:53:11 +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 03:32:24PM -0400, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 16:06:56 +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 08:36:11AM -0400, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote: ... > > > > IIUC, this code falls well outside the current policy around > > > > ABI compatibility. > > > How so? > > > > > > > So the only thing that the removal of these compat > > > > layers should affect is source compatibility, but since this compat code is > > > You do not understand what ABI compat is. > > > > Sorry, I rushed when I wrote my email and goofed. (1) I meant to say binary > > compat not ABI compat, and (2) I conflated the ports policy with all of > > And what is the difference between binary compatibily and ABI? Two systems can have the same ABI (calling conventions, etc.) but not provide the same syscalls or libc functions, no? In such scenario, the binaries from one wouldn't run on the other. Jeff.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aM1HZfxnBeQLIYpZ>