EI_ABIVERSION usage

[David O'Brien]

On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 05:05:37PM -0700, Geoff Keating wrote:
> The specification was written from the point of view of defining an
> ABI.  It has nothing to say about OSs or executables that _don't_
> comply with the specification.
> 
> So, if you're not planning to produce a fully conforming OS, then you
> need to decide which parts of the specification to follow, and what to
> do otherwise.

This sounds like a toleration of using these fields.
 

> > Is there actually an ELF system in the world that does explicit system
> > calls in [dynamic] executables?
> 
> I didn't use the word "dynamic".  Lots of ELF systems do explicit
> system calls in static executables; such executables are not SVR4 ABI
> compliant.

I know you did not use the word "dynamic", I added it for clarity to make
sure you would put my response to your statement in the proper context of
"all the shared library names and their exported public interfaces".
Which I see you didn't.  But, I do appreciate you responding to this
thread.  I know of ELF systems do explicit system calls in static
executables.