Re: GNU/Linux binary compatibility (Was: Re: memory_object_lock_request and memory_object_data_return fnord)

[Wolfgang Jährling]

Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen@dekkers.cx> wrote:
> I doubt if binary compatibility with GNU/Linux is a good thing to
> have. It looks like we are then bound to the ABI and can't change it
> if we want to keep compatibility. There are also other problems, for
> example a program compiled on GNU/Linux could happily use PATH_MAX but
> that would cause a buffer overflow on GNU/Hurd. Also programs on
> GNU/Linux can use the /proc filesystem and can't on GNU/Hurd. There
> are probably more issues.

Exactly. A harmless construct like

#ifdef PATH_MAX
    /* do something with PATH_MAX, any maybe use realpath() */
#else
    /* the same thing with dynamic allocation and
       canonicalize_file_name() */
#endif

might even introduce a security problem. Thus we would need to recompile
all programs anyway. I can't see the point of having binary
compatiblity then.

Cheers,
GNU/Wolfgang

-- 
Wolfgang Jährling <wolfgang@pro-linux.de>    We're way ahead of you here.
Debian GNU/Linux user & Debian GNU/Hurd user The Hurd has always been on
Hurd Hacking: http://stdio.cjb.net/hhg.html  the cutting edge of not
hurd.gnu.org | www.gnu.org | www.debian.org  being good for anything.
[ "Accelerate you PC - with 9.81 m/s^2" ]    -- Roland McGrath