Xref: utzoo comp.unix.microport:1363 comp.sys.att:4054 comp.databases:1284
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!uport!plocher
From: plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport,comp.sys.att,comp.databases
Subject: Re: 386 Unix (In)compatibilities Summary
Message-ID: <429@uport.UUCP>
Date: 20 Aug 88 06:11:58 GMT
References: <802@vsi.UUCP>
Reply-To: plocher@uport.UUCP (John Plocher)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Microport Systems, Scotts Valley, CA
Lines: 16

In article <802@vsi.UUCP> sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) writes:
>> 	2) How does this relate to the whole ABI concept?
>
>To paraphrase someone who responded, ABI is planned compatibility--this
>(uPort vs. 386/ix compatiblity) is just coincidence.  

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.

    -John Plocher
     Microport Systems