Xref: utzoo comp.unix.microport:1420 comp.sys.att:4101 comp.databases:1319
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!cornell!mailrus!utah-gr!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wes
From: wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport,comp.sys.att,comp.databases
Subject: Re: 386 Unix (In)compatibilities Summary
Summary: ABI for the '386?
Message-ID: <170@obie.UUCP>
Date: 27 Aug 88 07:12:23 GMT
References: <802@vsi.UUCP> <429@uport.UUCP> <819@vsi.UUCP>
Distribution: comp
Organization: the Well of Souls
Lines: 31

In article <819@vsi.UUCP>, sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) writes:
> 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.

You have missed the point - all the System V Release 3's for the 386 are
based on the same port - the AT&T/Intel/Interactive port, which
interactive sells for 386 AT-bus machines as 386/ix.  You should be able
to take a 386 COFF file and run it on ANY V.3/386, like, for instance, a
Sequent, or an Acer Sys 32/20, which are NOT AT-bus machines.  That IS
an ABI.

> .......  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.

Right.  They all ARE for the 386.  See the above paragraph.

> 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.

Probably because it is such an unheard-of idea in the Unix world.  Until
now, that is.  And it happened on an Intel processor - what a revoltin'
development!
-- 
                     {hpda, uwmcsd1}!sp7040!obie!wes
           "Happiness lies in being priviledged to work hard for
           long hours in doing whatever you think is worth doing."
                         -- Robert A. Heinlein --