From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Tue Feb 5 10:19:57 2008 Message-ID: <47A87A5E.20004@freesbee.fr> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:01:50 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Vincent_Rivi=E8re?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mint Subject: Re: [MiNT] strip References: <47A732CA.9000803@freesbee.fr> <47A85ECA.1040307@freesbee.fr> <47A86491.6080404@utbm.fr> In-Reply-To: <47A86491.6080404@utbm.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: vincent.riviere@freesbee.fr Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.sparemint.org id m15FJviM009445 Olivier Landemarre wrote: > If binutils 2.13 alignment is 4, we should stay at 4, the problem should > appear when compil dynamic lib or software using dynamic lib . I suppose > aligment of PureC is too at 4 > So compatibility mix of older binutils PureC with new binutils will be > broken. For example if I compil screen.ldg with new gcc and use it with > my softwares probably it will crash. Don't worry. As long as the "GCC alignment" is the same (actually 2), the structure members will stay at the same offsets, and the binaries will be compatible. The "binutils alignment" is useful only for improving the performances. Switching the "binutils alignment" from 4 to 2 will avoid unnecessary fillers between object files. But the actual alignment will not be more broken than before (because GCC uses a 2-byte alignment). I will post more information in the Alignment thread. -- Vincent Rivière