&gt;Sorry for waiting until now to reply.<br>It&#39;s all good.&nbsp; : )<br><br>&gt;What do you think?<br>I think we should convert to BE, but not away from PE-COFF.&nbsp; There are too many differences between them, and while it would be less work in the short term to switch to ELF, in the long term, implementing all of the features of PE would be very troublesome.&nbsp; Not the least concern is that information such as import data and file headers aren&#39;t even mapped into a process&#39;s address space with ELF.&nbsp; As I understand it, when you get an IHANDLE to a linked in DLL it&#39;s just a pointer to the mapped in PE file header.&nbsp; I&#39;m sure there are programs that require this on a source level to run (which, for quite some time will be the only thing that affects us on the PowerPC side of things).
<br><br>That being said, a proper pe-powerpcbe target in gcc should then be the first priority.&nbsp; Binutils already more or less properly creates pe-powercbe files (with what I assume are your patches on the wiki, and a little monkeying to make sure that the MZ header and PE signature are always written as little-endian regardless of the target architecture).&nbsp; What kind of issues had you had on the EABI side of things, and what was your plan in more detail for emulating the features of PE in ELF?
<br><br>Also how much progress had you made in the port up to now?<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp; ~Tristan Miller<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (monocasa)<br><br>