Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!smile!alanf
From: alanf%smile@Sun.COM (Alan Fargusson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Standard Un*x H/W architecture
Message-ID: <60140@sun.uucp>
Date: 15 Jul 88 18:55:48 GMT
References: <261@hodge.UUCP> <370STORKEL@RICE> <607@riddle.UUCP> <223@sdeggo.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 13

In article <223@sdeggo.UUCP>, dave@sdeggo.UUCP (David L. Smith) writes:
> How is an ABI supposed to cope with differences in semantics across different
> Unix's?  For example, a version that has enforced locking for lockf and
> one that does not?  Sounds as if an ABI is only good for reasonably identical
> implementations.

Right!  I want to have only one version of the UNIX system.  Isn't that what
everyone wants?  The idea of the ABI is to allow a conforming program to be
distributed in binary so the vendor doesn't need to have one version for each
of the 99 machines based on the 68000.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Alan Fargusson		Sun Microsystems
alanf@sun.com		..!sun!alanf