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...)?
>> >
>
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
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
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...)?
>> >
>>
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
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
> 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 ?
--
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
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
