This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: binutils arm/PE issue causing failure on Windows Mobile 6.1+
- From: Danny Backx <danny dot backx at scarlet dot be>
- To: Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2009 20:52:59 +0200
- Subject: Re: 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> <1252254533.6106.274.camel@pavilion> <90baa01f0909060938n6eddbfer219723e880664afe@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: danny dot backx at scarlet dot be
On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 18:38 +0200, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2009/9/6 Danny Backx <danny.backx@scarlet.be>:
> > 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.
>
> I have a patch for fixing IAT size for PE-coff. The issue why I didn't
> posted it was, that the IAT for pseudo-relocation version 1 is badly
> corrupt, and it makes no sense to output size here. For version 2 of
> it, a proper IAT is written, as IAT and ILT have to be equal in size
> and each has to be written as one block, but for pseudo-relocation
> version 1 the IAT can be found all over the executable.
I'm afraid you're way ahead of me. Is version 1 vs version 2 something I
could select as a build option when compiling an application ? Or does
it depend on other factors ?
It must not be as easy as that...
Where can I find info on version 1 vs version 2 ?
Thanks,
Danny
--
Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info