Re: OT: definition of "ABI" (was Re: ABI change. Was Autobuilder needed?)
On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 02:00:04PM +0000, Sean Neakums wrote:
> That sounds more like a definition of an *API* to me.
No. The following is not true for an ABI:
> It should be possible to run the same compiled
> {binary} applications on any system with the right ABI.
> My
> understanding is that the ABI is at a lower level, and defines how
> parameters are passed into functions and system calls, and how to call
> system calls (which register to put the syscall number in, and which
> trap to use, etc.).
Your understanding is correct. The ABI is at the binary level, while the
API is at a source code level.
> I'm not familiar with the referenced documents,
> but the titles of the first two suggest that they are ABI definitions,
> whereas Winsock is definitely an API.
Well, I don't know about the examples. The Windows COM model allows ABI
compatibility, so maybe they are referring to that.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Reply to: