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 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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::NBI4IUKBIZMlQO: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!