Article View: comp.arch
Article #22089ABI vs. POSIX (was Re: Integer Multiply/Divide on Sparc)
From: Jim Hutchison
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1990 22:55
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1990 22:55
40 lines
2632 bytes
2632 bytes
In <18132@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> mike@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Mike Haertel) writes:
>I don't see how ABI is related to "open systems."
It doesn't, it's just an agreement for applications to play the same games
on different machines without having to be "ported".
>Source level compatibility ought to be enough for anyone. With the
>emergence of, e.g., ANSI C, POSIX.1, and (less desirably) the
>X window system, it will be substantially easier to write portable
>programs, and these standards are likely to have a far longer viable
>life than any ABI.
Common languages, system interfaces, and window systems are things which
make porting easier, to be sure. They do little to help you spread your
product over a wide range of machines. Compatibility == chance to sell.
>I see source level standards as being far less likely than ABIs
>to kill future innovation. RISC architectures, and surely the
>SPARC, are far from the last word in computer architecture!
ABIs kill innovation? Hmm, let's look at this closely. We have ANSI C,
which gives a standard language (maybe outdated in 10 years). Then we
have POSIX.1 which is a standard which will grow-or-die with the needs of
its community. Along with these we have the ABIs for various architectures,
which will grow in number with new architectures, or die out as a bad-fad.
I see ABI as being a nice little flag to 'cc' which you can tell it to make
and ABI application instead of an application which has your whizbang fpa
instructions, or XXX-special instructions. The advantage of this being
that you can support multiple machines/vendors with a single executable.
You don't get the max performance you get out of a nicely tuned program
either, but it runs right off of the shelf.
Hey, but that's just me looking at a way this could work out for the best.
It could be a really annoying twisted little way of keeping us all down on
the farm while Sun takes off and designs new compliers and new hardware. :-)
--
/* Jim Hutchison {dcdwest,ucbvax}!ucsd!celerity!hutch */
/* Disclaimer: I am not an official spokesman for FPS computing */
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<6095@celit.fps.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucsdhub!celit!hutchReferences:
<8840005@hpfcso.HP.COM> <1249@otc.otca.oz> <18132@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucsdhub!celit!hutch From: hutch@fps.com (Jim Hutchison) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: ABI vs. POSIX (was Re: Integer Multiply/Divide on Sparc) Message-ID: <6095@celit.fps.com> Date: 12 Jan 90 22:55:33 GMT References: <8840005@hpfcso.HP.COM> <1249@otc.otca.oz> <18132@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> Sender: daemon@fps.com Reply-To: hutch@fps.com (Jim Hutchison) Organization: FPS Computing Lines: 40