Message-Id:	<199705120624.IAA19193@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:	Mon, 12 May 1997 08:25:56 +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, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<5363.9705081458@lupus>

Once upon a time (on  8 May 97 at 15:58) Chris Matrakidis said:

> > > My point was that in the MSDOS/Windows world there are many tools that
> > > support PE executables. Compatibility with them can only benefit DJGPP.
> > True, but I'm also thinking about the benefits of a format itself. ELF is
> > much more modern and better designed than COFF in general and PE in
> > particular. If changing/adding the output format, why not to use the best
> > one? 
> > 
> I think that PE's widespread use makes it a better choice than ELF.
Yes this certainly has its benefits. I guess I'm just biased - I don't like 
Micro$lotha and I consider ELF to be a better format (despite my feelings 
about M$). Besides, Charles was right in the other message - instead of 
talking, I should start coding. But, alas, I am not an object format 
wizard...
----------------------------------------------------------
Doctor said my liver looks like living with my lover -
needs another time-out now. Like any sort of hero turning
down to zero, standing out in any crowd. [snip]
Dr. Finlay: And my advice is if you maintain this lifestyle
you won't reach 30...
----

- Raw text -