Message-ID: <348DC0BE.5C9C075A@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 23:05:50 +0100
From: Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: WarGamer99 <wargamer99 AT aol DOT com>
CC: DJGPP Mailing list <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: HELP - Indirect Calls/Branches in DJGPP Linker
References: <19971209025700 DOT VAA14189 AT ladder02 DOT news DOT aol DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

WarGamer99 schrieb:
> 
[SNIP]
> He stated, "we've tried to add DJGPP support to Fastgraph in the past, but
> there is apparently a problem in the DJGPP linker that prevents us from doing
> so. It seems the linker cannot resolve addresses generated by indirect branch
> or indirect call instructions, both of which are used rather extensively in
> Fastgraph's assembly language code.  Should the linker problem be fixed in the
> future, we'll again try supporting DJGPP."

Please give an example. Maybe I know what you mean, but in that case
it is a bug in the assembler (I found it for instance in TASM). So,
please
give us an example where the linker does the wrong and we will see, what
we can do.

> Do any DJGPP gurus know if this linker problem has been corrected?  If so, can
> you give me some "proof" so I can email it to Ted (I *really* want to use

See above: First proof that the linker has that problem.

Robert
-- 
******************************************************
* email:   Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net>     *
* Post:    Am Berg 3, D-09573 Dittmannsdorf, Germany *
* WWW:     http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~sho/rho        *
******************************************************