From:	Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT new-orleans DOT NeoSoft DOT com>
Subject:	Re: object file format change?
To:	nigel AT algor DOT co DOT uk (Nigel Stephens)
Date:	Thu, 8 Dec 1994 08:52:44 -0600 (CST)
Cc:	mat AT ardi DOT com, djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu, elf AT netcom DOT com

> cross-compiler using --target=i386-go32.  Linux is a red herring:
> there all sorts of different Unix systems (e.g. FreeBSD) with
> different native object code formats, why should we choose to be
> "compatible" with Linux only?

A very good point.  So far, the best argument I have heard is the
superior functionality (C++ debugging, overlinking, etc).

> And when Windoze95/Chicago eventually arrives, how much longer will
> vanilla MSDOS survive: Chicago runs 32-bit NT/COFF executables too.

DJGPP apps still run in Win 95 DOS windows, actually much faster than
NT/COFF images do.  DJGPP is still the best for text apps.  What is
obvious to me is that in a few years non-DPMI systems will be rare.
Enhancing our djgpp libc to be long file name aware under Win95 is
possible (I have some working prototypes).

> Although I think that ELF is a much more elegant format (we use it
> ourselves for our tools), it looks like compilers whose primary
> emphasis is DOS (and therefore soon Chicago) should standardise on
> NT-compatible COFF.  It is a golden opportunity that Microsoft picked
> an object code format which is easily supported by the GNU tools.
> 
> Products like Toolbuster use GCC to provide a Unix compiler and
> run-time environment for NT/Chicago, but you have to pay for them.  It
> would be great if DJGPP could form the basis of a free alternative.

People are also working on GCC for NT; this may turn out to be the entire
Win 95 solution or provide a lot of the code necessary to turn it on.
You can also run Win 32s images under Win 3.1 with a DLL, so there may
be a Win 3.1 solution eventually also.  Unfortunately, performance is
not what I would like.

- Raw text -