This is the mail archive of the
libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Has anyone looked at ELF 4.1?
- To: ian@cygnus.com (Ian Lance Taylor)
- Subject: Re: Has anyone looked at ELF 4.1?
- From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu)
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: gas2@cygnus.com, libc-hacker@cygnus.com
> As I read it, it's a bit different from the OLF proposal. SCO is
> defining EI_OSABI as indicating whether the file conforms to the
> standard ELF format. A value of 0 (ELFOSABI_SYSV) indicates that the
> file does conform. For EI_ABIVERSION, a conforming application must
> use 0. Our files do conform to the specification (I hope), so it is
> correct for us to use 0 for both.
>
> However, we could perhaps ask registry@sco.com to define
> ELFOSABI_LINUX, and define that as being the same as the standard, but
> using the Linux API. Similarly for other free operating systems.
>
The purpose of EI_OSABI and EI_ABIVERSION is to tag the OS and ABI.
I think we should register ELFOSABI_LINUX and define it as 1. It may
make many things easier for us. Right now, after I upgrade from
glibc 2.0 to 2.1, groff (man) no longer works since the C++ ABI in
glibc is changed.
--
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)