|COFF questions firstname.lastname@example.org (Xavier Leclercq) (2001-02-23)|
|Re: COFF questions email@example.com (Hans-Bernhard Broeker) (2001-02-25)|
|Re: COFF questions firstname.lastname@example.org (John Whaley) (2001-02-25)|
|Re: COFF questions email@example.com (Randall Hyde) (2001-03-01)|
|Re: COFF questions firstname.lastname@example.org (Norman Black) (2001-03-01)|
|COFF questions email@example.com (Jeffrey B. Messinger) (1991-02-11)|
|From:||"Randall Hyde" <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||1 Mar 2001 02:34:59 -0500|
|Organization:||Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com|
|Posted-Date:||01 Mar 2001 02:34:59 EST|
"Hans-Bernhard Broeker" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> Well, for the start, you should note that what Microsoft calls 'COFF'
> is not the same as what that word meant before they came in to spoil
> it. Another case of "embrace and extend", that is. That's one reason
> why the GNU BFD library needs a separate backend for 'pe_coff'.
I was under the impression that MS changed the fields that are allowed
to be changed in the COFF definition (which seems perfectly reasonable
to me). Can you provide examples where MS actually violated the COFF
standard? The fact that GNU's tools need to handle MS output
specifically probably has to do with debug information. The word
COFF, prior to MS, left the definition of debug info up to the vendor.
You can hardly blame MS for choosing their own variants here. Randy
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.