Re: [Cegcc-devel] xxx is not a valid Pocket PC application if SizeOfImage>10000

2008-08-27 Thread forumer
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:25:15 +0200, Jérôme Decoodt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > BTW, does anyone have successfully loaded a .exe linked with a DLL >> > larger than 64kB under an official WM6.1 (cooked WM6.1 seems to > work...)? >> > >

Re: [Cegcc-devel] wrong version of binutils in cegcc website

2008-08-27 Thread Danny Backx
To be right, we should publish a table saying which version of cegcc contains which version of xyz software. You're right, the version of binutils in our SVN right now is a snapshot from binutils CVS. You got the date wrong though : I believe we are using a snapshot dated 2008/01/01 (/MM/DD) a

[Cegcc-devel] wrong version of binutils in cegcc website

2008-08-27 Thread forumer
Hi, From http://cegcc.sourceforge.net/docs/what.html it's written that binutils version is 2.17 but I have downloaded the same version to see differences and there are too many differences. From my search I think that binutils version is actually a snapshot tagged sid-snapshot-20080801. I tried

Re: [Cegcc-devel] xxx is not a valid Pocket PC application if SizeOfImage>10000

2008-08-27 Thread forumer
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:25:15 +0200, Jérôme Decoodt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > BTW, does anyone have successfully loaded a .exe linked with a DLL >> > larger than 64kB under an official WM6.1 (cooked WM6.1 seems to > work...)? >> > >>

Re: [Cegcc-devel] xxx is not a valid Pocket PC application if SizeOfImage>10000

2008-08-27 Thread forumer
Sorry I really didn't understand your question ;-) I was talking about standard dll (visual one). Hope you will find the issue ... On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:25:15 +0200, Jérôme Decoodt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > BTW, does anyone have

Re: [Cegcc-devel] xxx is not a valid Pocket PC application if SizeOfImage>10000

2008-08-27 Thread Jérôme Decoodt
Hello, On Wed, Aug 27, 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > BTW, does anyone have successfully loaded a .exe linked with a DLL > > larger than 64kB under an official WM6.1 (cooked WM6.1 seems to work...)? > > > Hum I don't really understand your question because of course I have > successfully loade

Re: [Cegcc-devel] xxx is not a valid Pocket PC application if SizeOfImage>10000

2008-08-27 Thread forumer
> BTW, does anyone have successfully loaded a .exe linked with a DLL > larger than 64kB under an official WM6.1 (cooked WM6.1 seems to work...)? > Hum I don't really understand your question because of course I have successfully loaded a DLL larger than 64kB on a WM 6.1. What is the problem ? --

Re: [Cegcc-devel] xxx is not a valid Pocket PC application if SizeOfImage>10000

2008-08-27 Thread Jérôme Decoodt
Hello, > Thanks for investigating that kind of low level stuff. > Could I ask why you are playing with PE executable ? You learn viruses ;-) Well, I'm just searching what can cause the executable to be flagged as not valid under WM6.1 and valid on WM6... BTW, does anyone have successfully loaded

Re: [Cegcc-devel] xxx is not a valid Pocket PC application if SizeOfImage>10000

2008-08-27 Thread forumer
Thanks for investigating that kind of low level stuff. Could I ask why you are playing with PE executable ? You learn viruses ;-) On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:07:25 +0200, Jérôme Decoodt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Some news about this bugs... It appears that compiling under gcc then > link