X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=BgOhWG8jT8DcXjxUUvpahJZmIFHyARFQKdX4bGre6GY=;
	b=s7nkIempMyOnaSBaO+4EzitiIqlIW8kpCnCZVTzNqCFnlsDFd4xMPfR2FP30IMvPAU
	94aj13mYGTKMb6XO+j19eHeqT3HvGRWl0B7NHDkr0FQPwnUPMYXa/8FP3211bFJnbKXp
	BALJ0L+8aPg1mXGAtZePaV6+tVvAFN/a9ccMk=
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<201106302033.p5UKXXxE000309@envy.delorie.com>
References:	<BANLkTinM3VV4sxtoyzSGVqqssxrN2tzPNQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201106302033 DOT p5UKXXxE000309 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:37:01 -0500
Message-ID:	<BANLkTi=yXtZ38syzPeend-6e+4fQvs--fQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: BinUtils (miscellaneous)
From:	Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id p612bA8m028414
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:33 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I upgraded delorie.com and a few things stopped working.

Scary when that happens without warning.

> I need to build a newer compiler anyway, I think that one is still gcc 2.7 !

Honestly, I don't know why I even tried it (1000 lines!), I don't need
it. (I've installed DJGPP locally so many times!) And it was 2.8.1,
last I checked.  ;-)

> Yeah, it would be up to the VMS maintainer, not me.  They get to
> decide the destiny of their platforms ;-)

Well, we're the (only) ones who might accidentally run it, but I admit
that is a rare (small) risk. I only mentioned it for completeness; I
wasn't really optimistic about the idea.

>> around that. What I *can't* fix is it saying a spurious error message
>> about "undefined symbol L0 not found". Only DJ himself (or somebody
>> smarter than I am) could possibly decipher it. It's a new "change",
>> and I'm not sure why!
>
> I bet it's L0<ctrl-A><something :-)

I don't know. It only said "L0", which obviously (?) I didn't use for anything.

>> 4). Last I checked, --gc-sections didn't work for COFF at all.
>> Apparently the COFF backend maintainer is ... DJ himself! But I know
>
> COFF is a dumb container compared to ELF.

I know, but it's simpler to handle ... and all we've got!

> PE is *not* COFF, it's just similar to COFF.  It's pretty much its own
> backend by now :-P

I know, the relocs differ (right?), but it's closer to us than ELF.
Anyways, I'm just thinking out loud. I don't see any advantage to
having two incompatible formats in use. I know switching DJGPP to ELF
isn't probably going to happen, but switching to PE COFF isn't nearly
as hard, is it? (I know I know ... not going to happen. Just seems
like it would simplify some things.)

Anyways, I was just mentioning it in the hope that it might (almost)
work. I don't know why C-based languages ignore smartlinking when
Pascal-based ones often go out of their way.

- Raw text -