Re: About ELF format

Lode <lod@egobolinu.xorg>
21 Sep 2004 22:19:02 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
About ELF format (2004-05-30)
Re: About ELF format (George Huber) (2004-06-06)
Re: About ELF format (Jie Zhang) (2004-06-06)
Re: About ELF format (Tim Bauer) (2004-06-06)
Re: About ELF format (2004-06-11)
Re: About ELF format lod@egobolinu.xorg (Lode) (2004-09-21)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Lode <lod@egobolinu.xorg>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 21 Sep 2004 22:19:02 -0400
Organization: Rebel Alliance
References: 04-05-098 04-06-010 04-06-048
Keywords: GCC, linker
Posted-Date: 21 Sep 2004 22:19:02 EDT

Vinay wrote:

> Hi Tim
> Your analysis is same as mine. The reason for that 12 byte offset is
> still a mistry. I compiled a simple .c file, with just a main function
> and a printf inside it.
> But I found that this 12 bytes offset is seen when compiled on Red Hat
> 7.2(GCC 2.96)!! On 9.0(gcc 3.2.2) its perfect!! So I need to know why
> GCC 2.96 added that extra 12 bytes.

It's always good to remember that GCC 2.96 is an unofficial, unsupported
version. The GCC folks will most likely ignore you if you report bugs from
this CVS snapshot turned into a release by RedHat. More info:

>From the link:

"We would like to point out that GCC 2.96 is not a formal GCC release nor
will there ever be such a release. Rather, GCC 2.96 has been the code- name
for our development branch that will eventually become GCC 3.0."

"Please note that both GCC 2.96 and 2.97 are development versions; we do not
recommend using them for production purposes. Binaries built using any
version of GCC 2.96 or 2.97 will not be portable to systems based on one of
our regular releases.

If you encounter a bug in a compiler labeled 2.96, we suggest you contact
whoever supplied the compiler as we can not support 2.96 versions that were
not issued by the GCC team."

-- Lode

Post a followup to this message

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