Re: executables
Wed, 7 Dec 1994 04:33:33 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
executables (1994-11-30)
Re: executables (1994-12-03)
Re: executables johnm@cory.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (1994-12-04)
Re: executables (1994-12-06)
Re: executables (1994-12-07)
Re: executables (1994-12-08)
Re: executables (1994-12-08)
Re: executables (1994-12-09)
Re: executables: COFF (1994-12-11)
executables (1994-12-12)
Re: executables (1994-12-12)
[8 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Keywords: linker, MSDOS, comment
Organization: Flex Information Network HAWAII
References: 94-12-035
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 04:33:33 GMT

John D. Mitchell <johnm@cory.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:

>If it's just the plain old 'simple' stuff then Intel's .obj 'document' and
>using something like Borland's tdump.exe should be all that you need...

Everybody keeps referring to this stuff as "old" and "simple" yet I can't
find a "textbook" answer. It must be one of these subjects (and there
are a few) where people who want to understand it are left on their own
to experiment and figure out. Granted a book on the subject wouldn't
find its way onto the best seller list but if Aho and Fischer and the
others can all turn out compiler books I'd think a chapter or two on
relocatable object format would (if nothing else) distinguish them a bit

>If you're trying to link your stuff in with MS or Borland generated code
>then you'll need to get information from them about their .obj 'extensions'
>(probably the same for other compilers too...

I'm not going to write the linker. I think I have to know the calling
conventions of the language I'm going to imbed mine into but not too much
more than that. In any case that isn't the primary puzzle to solve.


[I've found occasional overview chapters on linkers, but nothing ever in
detail. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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