From:	Bill Currie <bill AT taniwha DOT tssc DOT co DOT nz>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: COFF obsolete, let's port to Elf for version 3
Date:	Wed, 20 May 1998 20:46:26 +1200
Organization:	NetLink Wellington, New Zealand.
Lines:	29
Message-ID:	<35629862.FB32B700@taniwha.tssc.co.nz>
References:	<m0ybP3H-000S3GC AT inti DOT gov DOT ar> <6jpugg$luo$1 AT rosenews DOT rose DOT hp DOT com> <LTV1OBA+LeY1Ews4 AT talula DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> <6jss3q$s86$1 AT rosenews DOT rose DOT hp DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	nzlu02.tssc.co.nz
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Andrew Crabtree wrote:
> > and not a specific requirement of the object format?
> It is :(   I was told this on the gcc developers list some time ago when I
> reported problems related to libgcc-test.c having to do with pre-pending
> underscores., and just now (before replying) verified it in the elf 1.1
> standard.
> 
> 1-17 "Note - External C symbols have the same names in C and object files'
> symbol tables."
> 
> >If ELF really doesn't allow these underscores, I think that would be a
> >very strong reason to continue using COFF.
> Definitely.  I hadn't even thought of the implication that all (most)
> assembly would have to change.

Just how offensive would it be to say "stuff section 1-17, backwards
compatability is more important than strict ELF compliance, heck, it's
only symbols"?  It's not as if linking Linux object files with DJGPP
ones will work anyway, due to the different syscall conventions (though
an emulation lib could be made).

I'm actually thinking of writing a loader and reconfiguring gcc/binutils
myself.  Don't let this stop anybody else from doing this, and don't
hold your breath, as I don't know how much time I will be able to
dedicate to this.

Bill
-- 
Leave others their otherness.

- Raw text -