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