Subject: Re: Removal of old toolchain
To: None <email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: ITOH Yasufumi <email@example.com>
Date: 09/16/2002 11:16:30
This discussion is probably useless. :)
In article <20020915170644.H505@dr-evil.shagadelic.org>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 08:50:35AM +0900, ITOH Yasufumi wrote:
> > If a program is only tested on ELF toolchain, the quality of code
> > is like this.
> Eh. While I do believe you that the different object format exposed these
> bugs, I'm not sure a blanket statement like "quality of code is like this"
> is really fair nor accurate. It's like saying we should all use Alphas
> instead of x86 systems so that finding unaligned access bugs is easier.
Yeah, but I'm under impression that
``This program is developed in a.out, and just works for other formats''
is more probable than that
``This program is developed in ELF, and just works for other formats''
where the program is supposed to be a portable C program.
I said this as quality.
> > ELF has other too unique features (ex. C symbols and assembler symbols
> > are same, dynamic linker automatically loads dependent libraries),
> > which make it easy to write non-portable programs.
> Err... There are lots of other things that make it easy to write non-portable
> programs, too. Should we remove the err(3)/warn(3) family of functions from
> our C library?
Oops, I didn't mean portability between platforms.
I mean possibility that a program ``just works'' on
different binary formats on a platform.
> In what way is a.out doing things differently than ELF in the examples
> you cited above? Not issuing .align directives, or something?
I haven't confirmed, but probably
ELF places static data using larger zero-filled alignment,
while a.out places them using smaller alignment.