From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: patv@monmouth.com (Pat Villani) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:19:06 -0500 Subject: [TUHS] 32I status as of 17 Nov 2003 In-Reply-To: References: <200311171640.hAHGeOwB024089@wwws.monmouth.com> Message-ID: <3FB98FAA.9090507@monmouth.com> Brantley Coile wrote: >> 2. Will use coff executable format. May comply with Sys V ABI. The >> latter is TBD. > > > Please don't do that. There is no value in being Sys V ABI compliant and > the original a.out work very well. I've used it for two and a half > decades now, and still use it on Plan 9. There just needs to be magic > numbers for the various formats. I would suggest looking at the > 10Edition information for things that arn't as they currently are. A large part of my decision is based on using the gcc tool chain. Since coff is one of the binary formats, and it was a unix format, I thought it would work here as well. I don't see a real need for the ABI, but may do it if it is easy. >> 8. 32I is the interim name. I would have preferred Unix version 7, but >> can't for obvious trademark reasons. > > > I'm not sure if the current trademark owners can retro actively > disassociate a mark after the fact. If it WAS Unix 32V it still IS Unix > 32v. > I suppose if you do much more than port it to Intel one could argue > that it's not Unix 32V anymore. I was one of many who represented DEC at the Open Group during Digital UNIX certification. I'm familiar with unix branding, and I know I can't use the unix trademark, at least not without a lot of rework to the original source and a lot of money to go to TOG for testing. Technically, there is new, original code being developed that will be combined with the original code. This is a new product, even if the original code was called unix. Only the VAX binary can still be called unix. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of the subject. Pat -- I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education. -- Wilson Mizner