X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
Message-ID: <437B657C.804@latnet.lv>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:59:40 +0200
From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT latnet DOT lv>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Schumacher, Gordon" <gordon_schumacher AT maxtor DOT com>
Cc: "DJGPP List (E-mail)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Executable corruption with UPX v1.24 and v1.25
References: <71078E41DDE3E541B024832F34BC3D0DA3081B AT cowexc03 DOT corp DOT mxtr DOT net>
In-Reply-To: <71078E41DDE3E541B024832F34BC3D0DA3081B@cowexc03.corp.mxtr.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Schumacher, Gordon wrote:
> Hmm... is there any information anywhere as to what those incompatible
> versions of binutils and gcc might be?  Because we've been using UPX
> to compress our executables successfully for more than four years,
> starting with gcc 2.95 (I don't recall which binutils that was, four
> years ago) and now using gcc 3.41 and binutils 2.15.  As far as I know
> only recently has this become a problem.

I haven't specially studied all possible combinations. I noticed it 
about 3 years ago:
http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/browse.cgi?p=djgpp-workers/2002/10/14/02:25:16

I stopped using UPX after that time. Only tested time at time. I know 
that UPX-1.93 is OK.
Anyway size of uncompressed stripped binaries is generally not a problem 
(perhaps expect some small embeded systems).

Andris