Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 11:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199708261830.LAA11109@adit.ap.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Chirayu Krishnappa <chirayu AT radiolink DOT net>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
From: Nate Eldredge <eldredge AT ap DOT net>
Subject: Re: Function Sizes
Precedence: bulk

At 05:19  8/26/1997 -0400, Chirayu Krishnappa wrote:
>Also, I hear a lot that elf binaries r better. I want to use them. I
>could'nt find references to elf in the faq.
DJGPP doesn't support the ELF object/executable format. It was decided, I
don't know by whom, to use COFF long ago. Now we're stuck with it ;-). 
> If gcc can generate such object
>files and I use them, will I be missing out on anything. Also, can I link
>together, elf & coff object files together?
GNU Binutils can handle and create ELF files, and on systems such as Linux
that can run them does. But DJGPP would not be able to run an ELF binary.
And no, the formats are not compatible, and object files of the two types
cannot link together.

AFAIK, the main advantage of ELF is ease of using shared libraries. DJGPP
doesn't support these either (yet).

Nate Eldredge
eldredge AT ap DOT net