Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/02/17/10:32:34
Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:
>
> > Well I know it sounds crazy, but I want it in DJVerify to detect mixed
> > installations. That's a common problem (people saying: Why RHIDE pass only 128
> > bytes to gcc?).
>
> I think that if you need to check for specific functionality, you should
> just check for it, period. For example, in the case of long command
> lines, pass a long command to gcc and see what it got (by using -v and
> redirecting its stdout/stderr). Otherwise you will wind up dealing with
> too many combinations of different versions.
Ok for gcc, and what about make or flex or ...
> One problem is that every
> version of Binutils comes with a different stub built into it, which
> might be none of those distributed with stock DJGPP versions. Another
> problem is that people might recompile some of the tools using their own
> patched libc about which you don't have a clue, and the dates won't help
> you.
People recompiling such a things doesn't need an installation verifier, or not?
> > Additionally stub-less COFF files can be detected by the library version.
>
> Not if people use patched libraries. The version signature is only
> changed by DJ when he builds the library. I doubt if anybody else cares
> to bump the version with every patch. And even if they do, you don't
> know anything about their private version numbering. Since a patched
> libc is now available by courtesy of Tom Demmer, these cases might be
> more frequent than you think.
I really don't understand you at all. First you say that only DJ changes the
signature, then you talk about the patchs ... I just want to catch incompatible
versions, the only I know is 2.00 v.s. 2.01 nothing more.
> > And
> > very mixed things can be only created by people using alphas or similar stuff
> > that normally knows what happends without the need of any kind of verify
> > program.
>
> But people who ``know what they are doing'' could send a binary to
> somebody who doesn't know. For example, the stock version of dif271b.zip
> was linked against a version of libc from beta-testing period of v2.01.
> It turns out that this version didn't know about "/dev/null", so if you
> try something like "diff -c /dev/null foo" (a common way for making a
> patch file which creates a new file), you get an error message. Such
> problems are bound to happen, and it would be nice if diagnostic tools
> such as DJVerify won't be confused by them.
What? You ARE showing a case where DJVerify will think that this is the right
diff even when is a damaged one and the only way to know it is looking at the
signatures of the libc.
> For these reasons, I think that if you want to test for specific
> problems, just test them, don't rely on versions.
The only way for that is to know every problem. I just want to solve one: 2.00
v.s. 2.01. This problem can't be solved without looking the libc/stub
signature, if you know a general way tell me.
SET
------------------------------------ 0 --------------------------------
Visit my home page: http://set-soft.home.ml.org/
or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Alternative e-mail: set-sot AT usa DOT net - ICQ: 2951574
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA
TE: +(541) 759 0013
- Raw text -