Brian Ford wrote:
gcc doesn't create .o or .exe files. as/ld do respectively :).
Of course. There *are* gcc ports that don't use binutils, I know - I've
done gcc ports. But most "regular folks" think of "gcc" as a monolithic
compiler suite.
Anyway, I'll probably report this on the binutils lis
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Shankar Unni wrote:
> Alex Vinokur wrote:
>
> > How can one get the creation time of object file foo.o?
> >
> Use "objdump -p".
>
> But it looks like gcc doesn't stuff a timestamp into the .o, but does
> into the .exe.
>
Just a simple correction. gcc doesn't create .o or .exe
Alex Vinokur wrote:
How can one get the creation time of object file foo.o?
Use "objdump -p".
But it looks like gcc doesn't stuff a timestamp into the .o, but does
into the .exe.
Visual C++ puts a timestamp in both the .obj and .exe.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-
Alex Vinokur wrote:
> How to compute the MD5-sums of executables?
"man md5sum"
Brian
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.
"Demmer, Thomas" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip]
> Due to this "feature" the MD5-sums
> of executables compiled on two different machines will hardly ever
> concide.
[snip]
How to compute the MD5-sums of executables?
--
Alex Vinokur
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ma
"Shankar Unni" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Demmer, Thomas wrote:
>
> > Because the PE header has a field that contains
> > the creation time. Due to this "feature" the MD5-sums
> > of executables compiled on two different machines will hardly ever
> > concide. I have no clue why this
Demmer, Thomas wrote:
Because the PE header has a field that contains
the creation time. Due to this "feature" the MD5-sums
of executables compiled on two different machines will hardly ever
concide. I have no clue why this feature exists.
Almost *all* object file formats (ELF, COFF/PE, ...) have
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Alex Vinokur wrote:
> "Demmer, Thomas" wrote in message
>
Please, no plain text email addresses in replies. They are food
for spammers. Thanks.
> >"Alex Vinokur" wrote:
> >>[...]
> >>$ gcc foo.c -o x1.exe
> >>
> >>$ gcc foo.c -o x2.exe
> >>
> >>$ cmp x1.exe x2.exe
> >>x1.ex
"Demmer, Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>"Alex Vinokur" wrote:
>[...]
>>$ gcc foo.c -o x1.exe
>>
>>$ gcc foo.c -o x2.exe
>>
>>$ cmp x1.exe x2.exe
>>x1.exe x2.exe differ: char 137, line 2
>>
>>Why are x1.exe and x2.exe different?
>Because the PE header has a
"Alex Vinokur" wrote:
[...]
>$ gcc foo.c -o x1.exe
>
>$ gcc foo.c -o x2.exe
>
>$ cmp x1.exe x2.exe
>x1.exe x2.exe differ: char 137, line 2
>
>Why are x1.exe and x2.exe different?
Because the PE header has a field that contains
the creation time. Due to this "feature" the MD5-sums
of executables co
$ uname -sr
CYGWIN_NT-5.0 1.5.5(0.94/3/2)
$ gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 3.3.1 (cygming special)
[snip]
$ cmp -v
cmp (GNU diffutils) 2.8.4
[snip]
--- C program (foo.c) ---
int main()
{
return 0;
}
-
$ gcc foo.c -o x1.exe
$ gcc foo.c -o x2.exe
$ cmp x1.exe x2.exe
x1.exe x
11 matches
Mail list logo
