This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

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)

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]