Re: Object Module Formats

Paul Carroll <>
11 Sep 2001 00:22:34 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Object Module Formats (2001-09-05)
Re: Object Module Formats (david lindauer) (2001-09-11)
Re: Object Module Formats (Paul Carroll) (2001-09-11)
Re: Object Module Formats (2001-09-11)
Re: Object Module Formats (Aaron Gray) (2001-09-11)
Re: Object Module Formats (2001-09-16)
Re: Object Module Formats (david lindauer) (2001-09-20)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Paul Carroll <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 11 Sep 2001 00:22:34 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews,
References: 01-09-019
Keywords: linker
Posted-Date: 11 Sep 2001 00:22:34 EDT

ELF seems to be the most standard file format nowadays. Of course,
then you have to ask which debug format, since that isn't part of the
ELF specification. The choices would be between DWARF 1.1 and DWARF
2.0, although some other debug formats are also used. I'm not sure
that I can say which DWARF format is more widely supported. It just
seemed like DWARF 1.1 had a greater following, due to being older.

As for IEEE-695, it was developed at HP and Microtec, mainly for the
68k. Most of the IEEE-695 format is known, although the C++
extensions aren't documented outside of those companies, or at least
not widely.

"Oleg T." wrote:

> What is the most suitable Object Module Format for cross assemblers,
> compilers? It must be relocatable, machine independent, supported by
> most ICE vendors, with no limits regarding debugging process.. I
> learn IEEE-695(Rev4.1) and ELF formats now, but it is not so easy to
> me to compare them at this moment.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.