X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f X-Recipient: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BgOhWG8jT8DcXjxUUvpahJZmIFHyARFQKdX4bGre6GY=; b=s7nkIempMyOnaSBaO+4EzitiIqlIW8kpCnCZVTzNqCFnlsDFd4xMPfR2FP30IMvPAU 94aj13mYGTKMb6XO+j19eHeqT3HvGRWl0B7NHDkr0FQPwnUPMYXa/8FP3211bFJnbKXp BALJ0L+8aPg1mXGAtZePaV6+tVvAFN/a9ccMk= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201106302033.p5UKXXxE000309@envy.delorie.com> References: <201106302033 DOT p5UKXXxE000309 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:37:01 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: BinUtils (miscellaneous) From: Rugxulo To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id p612bA8m028414 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 Hi, On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:33 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > > Yeah, I upgraded delorie.com and a few things stopped working. Scary when that happens without warning. > I need to build a newer compiler anyway, I think that one is still gcc 2.7 ! Honestly, I don't know why I even tried it (1000 lines!), I don't need it. (I've installed DJGPP locally so many times!) And it was 2.8.1, last I checked. ;-) > Yeah, it would be up to the VMS maintainer, not me.  They get to > decide the destiny of their platforms ;-) Well, we're the (only) ones who might accidentally run it, but I admit that is a rare (small) risk. I only mentioned it for completeness; I wasn't really optimistic about the idea. >> around that. What I *can't* fix is it saying a spurious error message >> about "undefined symbol L0 not found". Only DJ himself (or somebody >> smarter than I am) could possibly decipher it. It's a new "change", >> and I'm not sure why! > > I bet it's L0> 4). Last I checked, --gc-sections didn't work for COFF at all. >> Apparently the COFF backend maintainer is ... DJ himself! But I know > > COFF is a dumb container compared to ELF. I know, but it's simpler to handle ... and all we've got! > PE is *not* COFF, it's just similar to COFF.  It's pretty much its own > backend by now :-P I know, the relocs differ (right?), but it's closer to us than ELF. Anyways, I'm just thinking out loud. I don't see any advantage to having two incompatible formats in use. I know switching DJGPP to ELF isn't probably going to happen, but switching to PE COFF isn't nearly as hard, is it? (I know I know ... not going to happen. Just seems like it would simplify some things.) Anyways, I was just mentioning it in the hope that it might (almost) work. I don't know why C-based languages ignore smartlinking when Pascal-based ones often go out of their way.