home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!mcdchg!mcdphx!udc!lhummel
- From: lhummel@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Lionel Hummel)
- Subject: Re: The end of the MC680X0 UNIX era?
- In-Reply-To: pls@root.co.uk's message of 20 Jan 93 13:57:10 GMT
- Message-ID: <LHUMMEL.93Jan24211500@neptune.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
- Sender: news@urbana.mcd.mot.com (News)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: neptune.urbana.mcd.mot.com
- Organization: Motorola MCD, Urbana Design Center
- References: <1993Jan12.053218.12579@tscs.com> <1993Jan12.183816.16619@phx.mcd.mot.com>
- <1993Jan18.160809.7109@elegant.com> <C15o3C.IoE@root.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:15:05 GMT
- Lines: 27
-
- In article <C15o3C.IoE@root.co.uk> pls@root.co.uk (Peter Skan) writes:
-
- > In <1993Jan18.160809.7109@elegant.com> woods@elegant.com (Greg A. Woods) writes:
- >> Rhetorically speaking, why wouldn't they drop SVR3 completely, since I
- >> assume it wouldn't take much to include a working version of coff2elf,
- >> and then they'd only have to support one O/S (on multiple platforms).
- >
- > Unfortunately, life is not so simple. The whole system call interface in
- > SVR4 is different, its not just a matter of COFF vs. ELF. (I believe that
- > coff2elf is only designed to work on .o files, BTW).
- > Binary compatibility with SVR3 was given up a long time ago - there was
- > no single binary standard for SVR3 on 68k anyway.
-
- Yes and no. Thanks to the 88k BCS/OCS, SVR3 binaries and sources have
- little difficulty on SVR4. Things start becoming muddy only when you
- start pushing outside the ground covered by the standards or when you
- get into DDI/DKI issues.
-
- As you noted, the lack of applicable standards creates a problem
- doing the same with the 68k.
- < Lionel
- -----------
- Lionel D. Hummel, Software Engineer
- Motorola Computer Group, Urbana Design Center
- lhummel@urbana.mcd.mot.com uiucuxc!udc!lhummel
-
- Disclaimer: I'm no spokesperson. I'm just me.
-