|About ELF format firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-05-30)|
|Re: About ELF format email@example.com (George Huber) (2004-06-06)|
|Re: About ELF format firstname.lastname@example.org (Jie Zhang) (2004-06-06)|
|Re: About ELF format email@example.com (Tim Bauer) (2004-06-06)|
|Re: About ELF format firstname.lastname@example.org (2004-06-11)|
|Re: About ELF format email@example.com (Lode) (2004-09-21)|
|Date:||11 Jun 2004 14:13:01 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||11 Jun 2004 14:13:01 EDT|
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.
> - Did any tool or utility touch the file?
No , I did not touch the file at all.
> - How did you generate the hex dump? It is doubtful that it is off, but I
> am at a loss
I used a hex editor(UltraEdit) to read the hex dump.
> - Does the executable function?
On RH7.2 it does work!!
> - Try running "readelf" on it. Expect an immediate fatal.
Readelf on 7.2 interprets the executable correctly. But the
readelf on 9.0 hangs when it tries to interpret the executable
compiled on 7.2 :-)
> Do you have the source file used to generate this?
Its just a simple c file with a main function and a printf inside it.
> Which gcc version?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.