Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:21:32 +0000
From:      <giffunip@tutopia.com>
To:        'Pedro F . Giffuni' <giffunip@tutopia.com>, Chagin Dmitry <dchagin@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: RFC: ELF branding. looking to a '.note.ABI-tag' section
Message-ID:  <20090106204820.31FFB8FC1B@mx1.freebsd.org>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=0D
=0D
On Mar Ene  6 14:59 , Chagin Dmitry  sent:=0D
=0D
>On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 09:38:35AM -0800, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:=0D
>> Hi;=0D
>> =0D
>> As the author of kern/118473 I think that ELF notes for brand-ELFing is =
a =0D
useless non standard hack. I do understand that we want to teach our linuxu=
lator =0D
about GNU ELF notes, but why would we want to use them for FreeBSD binaries=
?=0D
>> =0D
>> If you follow the posting on the lists by John Polstra and ELF spec you =
will =0D
find we don't need ELF notes. There is also a thread in some binutils list =
that =0D
made me conclude the reason they chose for not using the standard way was "=
NIH".=0D
>> =0D
>> Pedro.=0D
>> =0D
>=0D
>Hi, I don't think so. We already use this for native binaries.=0D
>=0D
>http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/kern/imgact_elf.c.diff\?=0D
r1=3D1.181;r2=3D1.182=0D
>=0D
=0D
Aha .. The ELF standard doesn't include the OS_version so using notes for t=
hat =0D
makes sense, however for the ABI the standard has always been EI_ABI field.=
=0D
=0D
http://www.sco.com/developers/gabi/latest/ch4.eheader.html#osabi=0D
=0D
Please check this interesting link:=0D
=0D
http://people.freebsd.org/~obrien/ei_osabi-binutils.mbox=0D
=0D
Pedro.=0D
=0D
=0D



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090106204820.31FFB8FC1B>