Re: COMPAT_FREEBSD<ancient>

On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 08:07:01AM -0400, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 22:53:11 +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 03:32:24PM -0400, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 16:06:56 +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 08:36:11AM -0400, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> ...
> > > > > IIUC, this code falls well outside the current policy around
> > > > > ABI compatibility.
> > > > How so?
> > > > 
> > > > > So the only thing that the removal of these compat
> > > > > layers should affect is source compatibility, but since this compat code is
> > > > You do not understand what ABI compat is.
> > > 
> > > Sorry, I rushed when I wrote my email and goofed.  (1) I meant to say binary
> > > compat not ABI compat, and (2) I conflated the ports policy with all of
> >
> > And what is the difference between binary compatibily and ABI?
> 
> Two systems can have the same ABI (calling conventions, etc.) but not
> provide the same syscalls or libc functions, no?  In such scenario, the
> binaries from one wouldn't run on the other.

ABI defines the (whole) environment where the code from a binary is
executed. Your attempt to restrict ABI meaning only to some aspect of it
is not reasonable.