From: Shawn Hargreaves Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: COFF obsolete, let's port to Elf for version 3 Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 20:36:56 +0100 Organization: None Message-ID: References: <6jpugg$luo$1 AT rosenews DOT rose DOT hp DOT com> <6jun9d$d1p$1 AT star DOT cs DOT vu DOT nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: talula.demon.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 31 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk Ruiter de M writes: >I'm not that convinced that this incompatibility is unacceptable. If >this ELF-thing is being worked on it will be for DJGPP-v3 I guess, and >considering the incompatibilities between v1 and v2 this >incompatibility might be justified. I think it is a bad thing to make changes that will break any programs which used to compile, if there is any possible alternative to that. Historically, the transition from djgpp 1.x to v2 did a brilliant job of preserving backward compatibility, even though the operating environment changed so drastically and the libc was totally rewritten. For example, when I converted my early Allegro code to djgpp v2, I only needed to make a few small changes to which header files I included! In the case of ELF label prefixes, this seems to be a choice between exact compatibility with the standard, or compatibility with the existing body of djgpp code. If we were to bend the rules a bit and keep the underscores, this would perhaps require a few tweaks to tools like GDB, but I don't think anything too terrible would happen (the files could not be mixed with ELF objects from other systems, but that is very unlikely to work in any case :-) IMHO it is more important to maintain full compatibility with existing programs, but of course this decision must ultimately be made by whoever actually does the work of adding ELF support... -- Shawn Hargreaves - shawn AT talula DOT demon DOT co DOT uk - http://www.talula.demon.co.uk/ "Miracles are nothing if you've got the wrong intentions" - Mike Keneally