From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7410 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2005 18:30:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7329 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2005 18:30:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Mar 2005 18:30:31 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j2FIUTB0027054 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:30:31 -0500 Received: from post-office.corp.redhat.com (post-office.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.227]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j2FIUTY19167; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:30:29 -0500 Received: from greed.delorie.com (dj.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.0.222]) by post-office.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j2FIUQh05550; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:30:28 -0500 Received: from greed.delorie.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by greed.delorie.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j2FIUN07001114; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:30:23 -0500 Received: (from dj@localhost) by greed.delorie.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j2FIUNV3001110; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:30:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:30:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200503151830.j2FIUNV3001110@greed.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: aaron98wiridge9@aaronwl.com CC: hanzac@gmail.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <4236B866.2000200@aaronwl.com> (aaron98wiridge9@aaronwl.com) Subject: Re: Strange flag in WIN32 PECOFF References: <42361FA5.90903@gmail.com> <42362AC0.7050808@aaronwl.com> <4236A621.10801@gmail.com> <4236B866.2000200@aaronwl.com> X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00417.txt.bz2 > I would suspect, without really knowing, that either PECOFF or > DJGPP's COFF implementation is incorrect with regards to the > original COFF specification. Since COFF is otherwise pretty much dead, "correct" is a nebulous term. DJGPP's COFF matched what all the other binutils coff's were doing back then (i386-coff was a popular embedded target), but that doesn't mean it's "correct". PECOFF matches what Microsoft was producing for Windows, but that doesn't mean it's "correct" either. The binutils tool "just know" which format they're expecting, so it's never been a problem before. In general, you can't just link DJGPP objects and PECOFF objects together. COFF differences aside, the code's semantics just won't merge well.