Talk:Application binary interface

hello

there is a lack of pointers to many of existing ABIs

linux standard base

linux standard base is really nothing to do with ABI compatibility. needs removed but some research around ABI compatability to replace the current, erroneous statement would be good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.202.40 (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

statement about standardisation of ABI in Unices

the following statement

There have been several attempts to standardise the ABI such that software vendors may distribute one binary application for all these systems, however to date, none of these have met with much success.

requires some reference or qualification —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.202.40 (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge

EABI article should not be merged with this article.

The EABI is a specific ABI. It does not make sense to make this high level discussion of what an ABI is have all of the different ABIs in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.111.126.138 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this high level discussion of "ABI" should not include all the information about specific ABIs. However, I suggest we merge Embedded Application Binary Interface into application binary interface anyway. EABI is not a specific ABI. (The ARM EABI, the PowerPC EABI, and the Motorola 8 and 16 bit EABI are specific ABIs). --68.0.124.33 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have to agree with you. I am just so used to thinking of the PPC EABI as the EABI. I wish there was a single equivalent for x86.

Apple ABI

Apple's operating system uses Objective-C for all its frameworks, which 'links' at runtime and does a bunch of clever things allowing you to call things with different numbers of argument and will dynamically change types of supplied arguments as necessary. So I don't think it technically can have ABI compatibility problems. Perhaps the person writing is complaining about API compatibility, i.e. Apple's habit of deprecating and then eliminating older APIs? — 89.145.102.10 (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]