Re: A symbol version patch for glibc 2.x compatibility

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at valinux dot com>]

On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 04:53:11PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:26:37AM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > I don't think it was written down anywhere. But I believe it has
> > come up during discussion. It goes like this, if you see something
> > you don't know, don't touch it. One goal for an ABI is ELF tools
> > from different vendors can work on the same set of ELF files. But
> > an OS vendor is free to add its own extensions. When you do it in
> > the ABI incompatible way such that the other ABI compliant ELF tools
> > may misprocess it, you should set the EI_OSABI bits.
> 
> In an effort to get a clear picture on the history of this I'm wondering
> if you know about this.  The first non-zero value seems to have been
> "ELFOSABI_HPUX".  Do you know how their ELF implementation (the ELF
> support in 11.x I assume), is non-standard such that the should be
> setting EI_OSABI to "ELFOSABI_HPUX".
>  

As I understand, HP extended their ELF implementation such that many
of other ELF tools might misprocess it.

-- 
H.J. Lu (hjl@valinux.com)