Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Shankar Unni Subject: Re: Printable information in executables Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:15:45 -0800 Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet AT sea DOT gmane DOT org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (Compact) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: Alex Vinokur wrote: > However those files contain neither compiler name nor compiler version. > It seems to be worth including something like "gcc version 3.3.1 (cygming special)" in executables. There's no standard place in the PE header (in the object files) for this sort of information. Besides, the compiler information would have to be per-".o", not per-".exe", since you can generally mix and match .o's from different compilers (provided they generate code with the same calling conventions and structure layouts) when linking a .exe. Even if there were a convention for inserting this kind of information (say, a special .info or .compiler section in the .o file), the executable would end up with hundreds of these strings for any moderately-sized program, and the information would be, at best, confusing and only mildly interesting.. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/