Message-Id:	<199705061152.NAA00943@grendel.sylaba.poznan.pl>
Comments:	Authenticated sender is <grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
From:	"Mark Habersack" <grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Organization:	PPP (Pesticide Powered Pumpkins)
To:	Chris Matrakidis <cmatraki AT eleceng DOT ucl DOT ac DOT uk>
Date:	Tue, 6 May 1997 13:54:13 +0100
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: PE executable format
Reply-to:	grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<1586.9705052053@lupus>

Once upon a time (on  5 May 97 at 21:53) Chris Matrakidis said:

> Has anybody thought about switching the output format to PE?
> 
> The way I see it, there are the following advantages:
> -DLLs and shared libraries.
> -Embeded stub.
> -Lots of third party utilities.
> -Win32 or mixed win32/dos executables (with the appropriate libraries).
> 
> The main disadvantage I see is that a new loader is required.
> 
> Any comments?
Why not to chose ELF instead of PE? PE is a modification of COFF and a not 
partiularily good one. ELF OTOH is well designed bottom-up and supported by 
equally large number of utilities. 
********************************************************
For when it comes down to it there's no use trying to
  pretend. For when it comes down to there's no one really
left to blame - blame it on me, you can blame it on me
We're just sugar mice on the rain.
----

- Raw text -