Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:20:21 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Mark Peek <mark@whistle.com> Cc: freebsd-ppc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: the abi Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1000608160509.66154A-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <p04320402b56556cf4ab7@[10.1.10.109]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Mark Peek wrote: > At 10:51 AM +0200 6/8/2000, Narvi wrote: > >We have the chices of: > > 1) the AIX/PowerOpen ABI > > 2) the SYSV4 PPC ABI > > 3) the EABI > > 4) grow our own > > > >1) Really stinks > >2) Stinks, but everybody uses it > >3) Is a variation of 2) > >4) Need not stink in principle. We need to tell the toolchain what it > >looks like. > > > >1) is probably the worst, and I don't know the best. > > > >This way or other, how about somebody deciding something? > > 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. Also consider that EABI or similar reduced abi has advantages in itself. And I don't think a different standard would 'fragment' FreeBSD. > Mark > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ppc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.1000608160509.66154A-100000>