Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/10/28/11:00:55
(I reply to this, because I haven't the origianl post here)
On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Peter Palotas wrote:
>
> > However, running strip on the compiled .exe file, and THEN running djp on
> > the program and the program gives me a GPF.
> >
> > I have version 2.8.1 of the binutils, version 1.04 of djp, and the WipOct19
> > of allegro. I don't know where the error lies, but I'm sure there is one!
>
> First, there's djp version 1.05. And second, maybe djp is not yet
> compatible with Binutils 2.8.1? The latter changed the way the stub is
> handled in a significant way, and djp has of course its own stub.
>
Incompatibilities between binutils 2.8.1 and DJP 1.05 are known to
me and Molnar (the author of DJP). He sent me already a patch for
DJP to solve this. The main problem is "simply", that in
binutils 2.8.1 the size of the exe header may be sometimes different
than from binutils 2.7. This wouldn't be in general a problem since
all the information in the exe header is correct but the problem
with DJP was, that Molnar made some assumptions about the exe header
without examining the actual values from the header.
(If I speak here about the exe header, I mean of course the real
exe header together with the COFF header).
Solutions for the problem:
- Create the exe files, which you want to compress, without
using stubify (but this needs some changes on the 'specs'
and the 'djgpp.djl' files, which should be done only by
experianced users). At least I do so and it works for me.
- Ask Molnar about the patch.
Robert
******************************************************
* Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net> *
* Post: Am Berg 3, D-09573 Dittmannsdorf, Germany *
* WWW: http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~sho/rho *
******************************************************
- Raw text -