From: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Message-Id: <200009221319.PAA03252@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject: Re: stub text shift
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 15:19:25 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To: <200009120705.JAA27117@lws256.lu.erisoft.se> from "Martin Stromberg" at Sep 12, 2000 09:05:29 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> > Why is this needed?  Unless random chance has that pointer pointing to
> > a valid "new exe" signature, we shouldn't need to worry about zeroing
> > it out.
> 
> It's not needed in the way that it doeesn't work, but Eli said:
> > I've just learned the hard way that we seem to be violating the EXE
> > file format, at least as it is documented in Ralf Brown's Interrupt
> > List.  RBIL says (under D-214B, table 1594) that the dword at offset
> > 3Ch in the executable file should be zero for plain MZ executables,
> > and non-zero for PE and other ``new executable'' formats.  The
> > non-zero value is the offset of the new executable header within the
> > executable disk file.
> 
> So we have a bug. And we should fix that bug.

So am I right when I assume silence means agreement? (I'm going to
apply the patch, unless somebody screams.)


Right,

						MartinS