🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr30.054735.7606@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> bediger@isis.cs.du.edu (bruce allen ediger) writes:

   I'm beginning to understand why one would prefer an executable file format
   like Mach-O or COFF.  What I don't understand is why we need two of them.
   It strikes me that COFF headers and Mach-O load commands contain similar if
   not identical information about the executables layout on disk and in
   memory.  Why not just use COFF?

Mach-O is more powerful, as far as I can remember. Mach-O allows you
to set up more than one thread (?) and you can also store core dumps
in Mach-O! Mach-O is more universal, it allows you to assign start
values to registers (does this work in COFF as well? -  I dunno.) 
COFF != COFF, there are many variations, since COFF allows some
sections of a COFF file to be used by different vendors. There is
ECOFF (DecStations), COFF for Apollos, which stores all debugging info
in one of the optional sections,...

So if COFF isn't that compatible anyway, why not start from scratch
and have a clean start? 


			bye,
				mike

Michael K. Gschwind, Dept. of VLSI-Design, Vienna University of Technology
mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at	1-2-3-4 kick the lawsuits out the door 
mike@vlsivie.uucp		5-6-7-8 innovate don't litigate         
e182202@awituw01.bitnet		9-A-B-C interfaces should be free
Voice: (++43).1.58801 8144	D-E-F-O look and feel has got to go!
Fax:   (++43).1.569697