On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 09:21:33PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:42:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > On 3/2/06, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote: > > > > But it doesn't -- ndiswrapper will sit there quite beningly if the non-free > > > > driver isn't present. It'll do everything it's supposed to -- link with the > > > > kernel and provide an ABI for other software -- without any errors. > > > Ok, but that's not everything it's supposed to do. > > > If that's all it needed to do then the code implementing the ABI > > > could do (*0)= "dump core" and that would be fine. > > Eh? If I found something that claimed to implement the C string library > > (strcpy, strcmp, strstr, etc) but just dumped core everytime it was > > invoked, I wouldn't say it implemented the ABI at all. Some ABI's leave > > some behaviour undefined (such as free(x); free(x);), but none leave > > all of it undefined. > For the case you described, it would not dump core. It wouldn't dump core if I didn't use it; as soon as I did, it would dump core, which would mean it didn't implement the ABI it claimed to, whether I was using it or not. We're getting into "if a tree fell in a forest..." territory here though. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature