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

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

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 03:40:46AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 11:26:37AM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > 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 farther thinking about this, I'm wondering why an EI_OSABI value for
> Linux(3) was registered and why SCO handed out all the values they did,
> if just about everybody shouldn't be setting EI_OSABI.  Is ELFOSABI_LINUX
> or ELFOSABI_HURD used by anyone?
> 

It is just in case we, Linux, want to add some extensions in the
future. We don't have to make every third party ELF tool vendor to
change when we ever do so. BTW, an ELF tool is a program which reads
and interprets ELF headers. It can be anything.


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