X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
Date:	Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:44:23 +0100
From:	Robert Riebisch <Robert DOT Riebisch AT arcor DOT de>
Organization:	none
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: /beta/bnu217b.zip won't work in pure DOS (UPX bug??)
References:	<399e419e-7325-4a50-91c1-09d15037dc7b AT a22g2000hsc DOT googlegroups DOT com>
Lines:	43
Message-ID:	<47ecaff9$0$4851$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date:	28 Mar 2008 09:44:41 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host:	71fbd3bf.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace:	DXC=KJ^9JBdX?=O AT k=MdN::NBI4IUK<Cl32<A4Fo<]lROoRA^;5]aA^R6>BIZMlQO:d]kDe1EV=NTSVSHAAmaOKcMmHB:U>GaKOH3YCS1HVAN4]UFH
X-Complaints-To:	usenet-abuse AT arcor DOT de
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Rugxulo wrote:

>    Well, I've been using GCC 3.44 (and BNU2161B.ZIP) on my old P166
> (DR-DOS only, heh) for quite a while, but I recently decided to
> upgrade. And it didn't work, something was wrong (GPF whenever

Why did you upgrade? I also like older versions for their smaller size.

> running, trying to compile latest NASM). I finally found out that it
> was Binutils causing the problem (e.g. AS.EXE, which is kinda
> important). It may be a UPX bug (at the very least, UPX 3.02 won't
> unpack it!!), but I dunno. All I know is that /beta/BNU217B.ZIP
> doesn't work in pure DOS or DOSBox (although QEMU/FreeDOS and things
> like XP or Vista work fine):  "invalid opcode" just for trying "as --

Also works fine in Bochs CVS or Virtual PC 2004. Tried with MS-DOS 6.22
HIMEM.SYS loaded and on clean boot.

> version" or "objdump --help". It was packed with UPX 3.01.

I'm already using /beta/BNU217B.ZIP for some month on Windows 2000 and
it always worked. Never tried in plain DOS, because I don't like to mess
around with LFN.

>    The workaround is to just use /current/BNU217B.ZIP instead (which
> uses the 2.04 stub unlike /beta/MAK381B.ZIP or /beta/DIF287B.ZIP or /
> beta/PAT259B.ZIP, strangely). It was packed with UPX 2.93. I also
> recompiled Binutils myself (.EXEs only, see link below for download
> info).

Ah, thanks! :-) Can you reproduce the problem, when you pack your
recompiled binaries with UPX 3.01?

>    More detailed info can be found below:
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1889631&group_id=2331&atid=102331

You found my bug report. :-)

-- 
Robert Riebisch
Bitte NUR in der Newsgroup antworten!
Please reply to the Newsgroup ONLY!

- Raw text -