This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [parisc-linux] Use of the EI_OSABI field
- To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Use of the EI_OSABI field
- From: Alan Modra <alan at linuxcare dot com dot au>
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 11:13:29 +1100 (EST)
- cc: John Marvin <jsm at udlkern dot fc dot hp dot com>, parisc-linux at puffin dot external dot hp dot com, parisc-linux at thepuffingroup dot com, binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
On 21 Nov 2000, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Alan Modra <alan@linuxcare.com.au> writes:
>
> > Ulrich Drepper also was quite vehement against changing sourceware
> > FreeBSD binutils.
>
> I've never said anything about any *BSD, why should I? The *BSD
> people wanted to change the Linux binutils.
Sorry, I stated that badly.
> Anyway, the ABI value is zero unless you implement ELF extensions.
Exactly what is an "ELF extension"? Anything outside gABI or
"gABI + psABI"? Handly the latter, as it seems to me that a processor
specific ABI can specify extensions. There's also the awkward possibility
that a psABI may specify an extension that is later incorporated into a
new revision of the gABI (eg. hpux and DT_INIT_ARRAY) Does that mean that
if a new revision of the gABI completely incorporates all previous
extensions, that EI_OSABI should become zero?
Yes, I'm arguing that "No ELF extensions => EI_OSABI == 0" is not
necessarily true, but I'm _not_ arguing that changing x86 Linux binutils
is wise. Historical usage is important. If we were to change x86 Linux
binutils to set EI_OSABI, then that can only be after a considerable
period of time to allow code such as glibc to accept a new branding.
Alan Modra
--
Linuxcare. Support for the Revolution.