-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/7/2014 5:26 PM, Alex Smith (K4RNT) wrote: > Wouldn't this break the binary compatibility guarantee that Solaris > had been traditionally marketed on? > > I'm no kernel engineer, so I wouldn't know.
No. The guarantee has always been that *IF* your application complies strictly with the ABI *THEN* it won't be broken on future releases without adequate notice. This doesn't in any way guarantee that you can produce such an application in the first place by linking together arbitrary (and incompatible) objects. Producing an ABI compliant application can be a difficult job, particularly if you choose to work in a hostile environment such as C++. - -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <carls...@workingcode.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iEYEARECAAYFAlSE2agACgkQ6TIHA1NkzvAeTgCbBlnMVHo6L9gduQQLqfXFgepK wpcAnRH8T957+0iiDjruaPDg2nZvnMRf =24p+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
