From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) To: ian@cygnus.com (Ian Lance Taylor) Cc: gas2@cygnus.com, libc-hacker@cygnus.com Subject: Re: Has anyone looked at ELF 4.1? Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:54:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <199808102051.QAA01721@subrogation.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 1998/msg00200.html > 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)