From:	"Andrew Crabtree" <andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: COFF obsolete, let's port to Elf for version 3
Date:	Wed, 20 May 1998 13:37:05 -0700
Organization:	Hewlett-Packard, Roseville
Lines:	16
Message-ID:	<6jveti$21e$1@rosenews.rose.hp.com>
References:	<m0ybP3H-000S3GC AT inti DOT gov DOT ar> <6jpugg$luo$1 AT rosenews DOT rose DOT hp DOT com> <LTV1OBA+LeY1Ews4 AT talula DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> <6jss3q$s86$1 AT rosenews DOT rose DOT hp DOT com> <35629862 DOT FB32B700 AT taniwha DOT tssc DOT co DOT nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	ros51675cra.rose.hp.com
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Bill Currie wrote in message <35629862 DOT FB32B700 AT taniwha DOT tssc DOT co DOT nz>...
>Just how offensive would it be to say "stuff section 1-17, backwards
>compatability is more important than strict ELF compliance, heck, it's
>only symbols"?
Dunno.  Possibly it wouldn't make any difference at all.  Worst case is that
a leading '-' has special
meaning in elf files and it would have references strewn all over binutils.

> It's not as if linking Linux object files with DJGPP
>ones will work anyway, due to the different syscall conventions
Whats the difference?  From the sample of code that goes through the pgcc
list  I got the impression that they are identical.

- Raw text -