This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: A symbol version patch for glibc 2.x compatibility
On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 10:40:06AM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 03:53:32AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > I don't understand why David kept asking for Linux to change.
> >
> > Because I'd like to follow something written down in a specification or
> > standard.
>
> Please do.
I would, but there isn't anything written in a standard about how to
determine the syscall API in an ELF binary.
> Both Ulrich and I have told you that your interpretation of gABI is
> incorrect.
Only now. I was somewhat led me astray with these emails:
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:50:59 -0700
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
To: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Advice on the prefered way to brand ELF binaries as
needed on FreeBSD
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 08:35:03PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> FreeBSD brands all ELF files so the image loader knows what type of
> binary it is and use the proper compatibility layer if the binary
> is not a native FreeBSD one.
..snip..
Why invent new thing when EI_OSABI is available?
This is the main email that lead me down the path thinking EI_OSABI was
usable as a syscall API branding method.
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 20:44:48 -0700
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com>
Subject: Re: Changes to include/elf/common.h
Message-ID: <20000502204448.A20372@lucon.org>
If the EI_OSABI field is zero, it should be treated as SVR4. That is
the idea how it should be used.
You really meant "generic ELF" I guess....
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 21:25:38 -0700
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com>
Subject: Re: Changes to include/elf/common.h
Message-ID: <20000502212538.A20536@lucon.org>
> If toolchain developers are unwilling to use the EI_OSABI field,
> why was it introduced?
The NOTE solution was developed before EI_OSABI from SCO/HP.
Here you did not tell my what I was trying to use EI_OSABI for was wrong.
> > names the section ".note.ABI-tag", NetBSD ".note.ident". I made FreeBSD
> > follow Linux with ".note.ABI-tag". Or does one search thru all the
> > PT_NOTE type sections looking for a type of 0x01? Search all the PT_NOTE
> > sections looking for a name string you recognize?
> >
>
> We can make a proposal to gABI.
What method would what would you suggest. Any above or another
algorithm?
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)