ar not compatible between 2.11 and 2.13 ?

ar not compatible between 2.11 and 2.13 ?

[Nitin Gupta]

I noticed that if I create an archive on machine using ar version 2.13 
(2.13.90.0.2 to be precise)

-- 
-NI+IN

Re: ar not compatible between 2.11 and 2.13 ?

[Nitin Gupta]

Sorry for the earlier partial email. Sent it by mistake

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 careted 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.
Thanks,
Nitin

Nitin Gupta wrote:

> I noticed that if I create an archive on machine using ar version 2.13 
> (2.13.90.0.2 to be precise)
>

-- 
-NI+IN

Re: ar not compatible between 2.11 and 2.13 ?

[Nick Clifton]

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

Re: ar not compatible between 2.11 and 2.13 ?

[Nitin Gupta]

>
>> 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

Re: ar not compatible between 2.11 and 2.13 ?

[H. J. Lu]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 09:30:32AM +0100, 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.
> 

The incompatibility is introduced by

http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2002-03/msg00260.html

On one hand, I think everyone should use the current binutils. But on
the other hand, I know not everyone will do that.


H.J.