Message-Id: <199705061152.NAA00943@grendel.sylaba.poznan.pl>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
From: "Mark Habersack" <grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Organization: PPP (Pesticide Powered Pumpkins)
To: Chris Matrakidis <cmatraki AT eleceng DOT ucl DOT ac DOT uk>
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 13:54:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: PE executable format
Reply-to: grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <1586.9705052053@lupus>
Precedence: bulk

Once upon a time (on  5 May 97 at 21:53) Chris Matrakidis said:

> Has anybody thought about switching the output format to PE?
> 
> The way I see it, there are the following advantages:
> -DLLs and shared libraries.
> -Embeded stub.
> -Lots of third party utilities.
> -Win32 or mixed win32/dos executables (with the appropriate libraries).
> 
> The main disadvantage I see is that a new loader is required.
> 
> Any comments?
Why not to chose ELF instead of PE? PE is a modification of COFF and a not 
partiularily good one. ELF OTOH is well designed bottom-up and supported by 
equally large number of utilities. 
********************************************************
For when it comes down to it there's no use trying to
  pretend. For when it comes down to there's no one really
left to blame - blame it on me, you can blame it on me
We're just sugar mice on the rain.
----