Re: A symbol version patch for glibc 2.x compatibility

["David O'Brien" <obrien at FreeBSD dot org>]

On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:26:37AM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> I don't think it was written down anywhere. But I believe it has
> come up during discussion. It goes like this, if you see something
> you don't know, don't touch it. One goal for an ABI is ELF tools
> from different vendors can work on the same set of ELF files. But
> an OS vendor is free to add its own extensions. When you do it in
> the ABI incompatible way such that the other ABI compliant ELF tools
> may misprocess it, you should set the EI_OSABI bits.

In an effort to get a clear picture on the history of this I'm wondering
if you know about this.  The first non-zero value seems to have been
"ELFOSABI_HPUX".  Do you know how their ELF implementation (the ELF
support in 11.x I assume), is non-standard such that the should be
setting EI_OSABI to "ELFOSABI_HPUX".
 
-- 
-- David  (obrien@FreeBSD.org)