Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted

kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk
13 Apr 2007 12:49:19 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-04-08)
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2007-04-08)
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted nmh@t3x.org (Nils M Holm) (2007-04-08)
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted ang.usenet@gmail.com (Aaron Gray) (2007-04-11)
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2007-04-11)
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted lpsantil@gmail.com (lpsantil@gmail.com) (2007-04-13)
Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk (2007-04-13)
Re: Windows executables, was Free x86 C compiler wanted marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2007-04-14)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 13 Apr 2007 12:49:19 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 07-04-033
Keywords: C, MSDOS

  gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) wrote:


> Also, I believe that at
> least the later versions of DOS and most Windows will load EXE
> files with a COM extension. That was done for FORMAT, for
> example.


  DOS decided what an executable format actually was by reading a header
in the program IIRC. The file designation COM, EXE etc. was only used to
decide what was executable and what was data. I don't know when it was
introduced but IIRC Windows 3.1 had a list of executable file types that
could be edited by the user.


  Ken Young



Post a followup to this message

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