> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> 
> : Yes, I'm happy with this provided that...
> :
> : tv@wasabisystems.com said:
> : > [*] "may", because given our past history with these types of things,
> : > we may decide just to keep "our" ABI in the future and be done with it.
> :
> : ... this is not part of the plan.
> 
> There's something to be said for keeping an ABI once a system release is
> out.  I cringe at the thought that we're putting out a release at all with
> an ABI as screwed as the one we have now, but changing it *yet again* is
> bordering on severe annoyance.
> 
> Hell, ATPCS isn't even `official' yet.  That's reason enough to me to Pick
> an ABI, and then stick with it.

I've said this before, so I'll say it again.  I don't support the long 
term creation an ABI that is not compliant with the ATPCS.  The 
alternative to having an *interim* ELF-based ABI is to stick with a.out 
until we can switch cleanly.

R.