From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Lance Taylor To: hjl@lucon.org Cc: gas2@cygnus.com, libc-hacker@cygnus.com Subject: Re: Has anyone looked at ELF 4.1? Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:51:00 -0000 Message-id: <199808102051.QAA01721@subrogation.cygnus.com> References: X-SW-Source: 1998/msg00199.html From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 07:19:38 -0700 (PDT) Has anyone looked at ELF 4.1? It is at http://www.sco.com/products/layered/develop/devspecs/ It is quite interesting. It has something we have talked about a few month back. I assume you are referring to EI_OSABI and EI_ABIVERSION. (Or do you mean something else? Why must you be so cryptic?) 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. Ian