Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 J�hrling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
