This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
binutils arm/PE issue causing failure on Windows Mobile 6.1+
- From: Danny Backx <danny dot backx at scarlet dot be>
- To: binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:28:53 +0200
- Subject: binutils arm/PE issue causing failure on Windows Mobile 6.1+
- References: <393699.26635.qm@web59310.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <478d3d0651678598383b6001c8399cf8@mail.smartmobili.com> <1252145077.6106.268.camel@pavilion>
- Reply-to: danny dot backx at scarlet dot be
Hi,
I'm forwarding w.r.t. an issue with cegcc (creating WinCE executables
for ARM).
We've had several reports over the last year, which were eventually
tracked down to issues with the PE format exes we create.
See some information about that below. Is the analysis by Vincent - that
some stuff is still missing from binutils - correct ?
Why is that, is there a way in which we can move forward ?
Thanks,
Danny
On Sat, 2009-09-05 at 12:04 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 10:41 +0200, Vincent R. wrote:
> > The problem about dll generated by cegcc and windows mobile >= 6.1 is due
> > to a binary format
> > not respecting completely PE loader requirements and especially about PE
> > sections.
> > You should read cegcc archives and you will see the whole story.
> > If you want to see it by yourself, try do dump(with objdump or PE explorer)
> > binary section from a Visual Studio binary and
> > from a cegcc one...
>
> So I did that again :-) and found your message of 2009-01-30 saying :
> > - Then I started to analyze the issue with WM6.1 and dll generated by
> > cegcc, you can see some investigations here :
> > http://www.smartmobili.com/content/view/41/42/lang,fr/
> >
> > The first problem I found was about Import Address Table that was
> > always
> > NULL while with Microsoft it's always filled.
> > This issue has been fixed by kai Tiez(mingw-w64 maintener) and should
> > be
> > available
> > in binutils trunk. There are other differences but unfortunately I am
> > not a
> > binutils hacker and I don't know howto fix them so I think WM6.1 issue
> > will
> > be a bit difficult to fix for now.
>
> Do you know the status of all this in binutils now ? Now that our gcc
> 4.4 environment is stable, this could be the next topic to look into.
On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 13:23 +0200, Vincent R. wrote:
> If my memory serves me right IAT issue was fixed by Kai Tietz but he
> didn't
> commit it because of a pseudo-relocation v1 issue.
> Actually I have never understood this pseudo-relocation stuff and
> especially why there was 2 versions (v1 and v2).
> Maybe you should ask on binutils.
> I think that to make it work it would be necessary to merge some
> sections
> (don't remember wich ones).
> Maybe a first plan would be to ask Kai to commit his patch, then
> update
> cegcc trunk with latest binutils and try
> to see if it changes something because I know that very regularly they
> make
> changes to be more compliant
> and to integrate more PE format features (last feature is DLL delay
> loading and pseudo assembler support for SEH)
--
Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info