Xref: utzoo comp.unix.microport:1387 comp.sys.att:4066 comp.databases:1296
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!ucsd!ucsdhub!esosun!seismo!uunet!vsi!sullivan
From: sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport,comp.sys.att,comp.databases
Subject: Re: 386 Unix (In)compatibilities Summary
Summary: Identical code isn't an ABI
Message-ID: <819@vsi.UUCP>
Date: 23 Aug 88 14:54:33 GMT
References: <802@vsi.UUCP> <429@uport.UUCP>
Distribution: comp
Organization: V-Systems, Inc. -- Santa Ana, CA
Lines: 25

In article <429@uport.UUCP>, plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher) writes:
> In article <802@vsi.UUCP> sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) writes:
> 
> Since the Microport V/386 code is based on (and is identical at the
> system call level) to the 386/ix code, the ABI is there by default (and
> design).  This (386) feature *is* what ABI is all about - the ability
> to take a package from one 386 machine and run it on another one, even
> if the Unix OS was bought from another vendor.
> 
> uPort vs. 386/ix compatiblity is there by DESIGN.

I don't think the fact that both of your OS's are based on the same code
is enough to call it an ABI, or even say the compatibility is there by
design.  An ABI is a standard, not a coincidence.  The idea is that even
if one Unix isn't based on the same port as yours, programs will still run
on both without recompiling.

Also, if the compatibility is there by design, why don't we hear more about
it.  After I made the original posting I received a lot of requests to
post whether the two were compatible.  Seems to me if they were _by design_
then there'd be a lot more made of it.
-- 
Michael Sullivan				{uunet|attmail}!vsi!sullivan
V-Systems, Inc. Santa Ana, CA			sullivan@vsi.com
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of eldeberries!  Pbbbt!"