On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 08:28:29PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > > I havent followed nor seen the discussion on ABI change. Could someone > > > elaborate on that ? > > > > It was some time ago -- from sjhill. There weren't that many people commenting > > on it at the time. > > > > I've attached the latest message I can see on it -- I don't seem to have the > > discussion anymore. > > > > If we decided to go this route, we need the patches to gcc and libc, and > > possibly the archive purge this thread is on. As this is being done on > > gcc-3.0, it may be a good idea to change the mips architectures to use that > > as the default gcc at this point... > > Why does this break binary compatibily - From my understanding just > the symbol order may change as the symbol order selection is different > (Which gave problems with the insmod elf loader stuff) Dynamic libraries have a header of one or the other -- and only one kind is understood by ld.so (the new, or the old). -- Ryan Murray, Debian Developer (email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org) The opinions expressed here are my own.
Description: PGP signature