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

[law at redhat dot com]

  In message <20001116165311.E74170@dragon.nuxi.com>you write:
  > 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".
It's part of HP's ELF standard -- I don't immediately recall if it had any
impact on how HP's tools functioned.
jeff