From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5516 invoked by alias); 1 May 2003 01:26:48 -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 5507 invoked from network); 1 May 2003 01:26:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lutea.cam.equator.com) (205.242.233.134) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 May 2003 01:26:48 -0000 Received: from equator.com ([10.0.0.131]) by lutea.cam.equator.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11) with ESMTP id 2003043018264747:61452 ; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:26:47 -0700 Message-ID: <3EB077D7.70600@equator.com> Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 01:26:00 -0000 From: Nitin Gupta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nitin Gupta CC: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: ar not compatible between 2.11 and 2.13 ? References: <3EAED57F.7050801@equator.com> <3EAED677.7080907@equator.com> <3EB076C6.8070106@equator.com> <3EB07785.9030904@equator.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 > >> OBSERVATION: >> I noticed that if the object name is 13 alphabets long >> say >> ABCDEFGHIJKLM.o >> >> and I build an archive using 2.13 ar by >> ar rucv libXYZ.a ABCDEFGHIJKLM.o >> than >> >> ar t libXYZ.a (using 2.11 ar) yields >> ABCDEFGHIJKLM. >> >> Nick Clifton wrote: >> >>>Hi Nitin, >>> >>> >>> >>>>I noticed that if I create an archive on machine using ar version >>>>2.13 (2.13.90.0.2 to be precise) say libXYZ.a, if I do a "ar t" on >>>>machine using 2.11 (2.11.90.0.8), I see >>>> >>>>ar t libXYZ.a >>>>X. >>>>Y.o >>>>Z.o >>>> >>>>It is just an example. The problem, is that the object names are >>>>missing ".o" when I do an "ar t" on a archive created using 2.13 >>>>version. BTW, it shows it correct if I use same version of archive >>>>to see the contents. >>>> >>>>Please let me know, if that is never suppose to work, or if there is >>>>a patch for it. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>There are no more patches available or planned to be produced for >>>version 2.11 of binutils. Since the 2.13 version is working correctly >>>I recommend sticking with that version. >>> >>>Cheers >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> > -- -NI+IN