From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Tue Feb 5 10:18:58 2008 Message-ID: <47A87D55.7060805@utbm.fr> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:14:29 +0100 From: Olivier Landemarre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mint Subject: Re: [MiNT] strip References: <47A732CA.9000803@freesbee.fr> <47A85ECA.1040307@freesbee.fr> <47A86491.6080404@utbm.fr> <47A87A5E.20004@freesbee.fr> In-Reply-To: <47A87A5E.20004@freesbee.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: olivier.landemarre@utbm.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 m15FIvph008111 Vincent Rivière a écrit : > 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. > So no problem with alignment 2 Ok >