OSDev.org

I don't know how easy it will be to "change the header," mainly because there are a lot of tools that work with the ELF format that you would need to change to get to work with your OS. It might just be easier to have a special section in the ELF file that stores data for your OS (things like minimum version required, program icons (if any), etc.). Then it would be much easier to port those tools.

Well, good luck (and nice avvy)!

Firestryke31 wrote:I don't know how easy it will be to "change the header," mainly because there are a lot of tools that work with the ELF format that you would need to change to get to work with your OS.

I'm not sure, except for GRUB I don't think there are that many tools you'd actually need after changing the header. That could be the last step. And before the OS is self-hosting and you'd actually need tools to inspect a binary executable, that's lightyears ahead.


JAL

Unless you just do what windows does - anything can be interpreted as an executable - but only .exe is interpreted like that by default. It would logically have to otherwise you could try and start DLLs since they share the file format.
(for the windows nerds, yes, you can change that behaviour)

so you can just have ELFs all over the place, and only treat filename.xso as an executable. (just like .mos is special cased for that purpose in my OS )

Firestryke31 wrote:Well, good luck (and nice avvy)!

thank you ^^ i like yours too.

and,

Combuster wrote:Unless you just do what windows does - anything can be interpreted as an executable - but only .exe is interpreted like that by default. It would logically have to otherwise you could try and start DLLs since they share the file format.
(for the windows nerds, yes, you can change that behaviour)

so you can just have ELFs all over the place, and only treat filename.xso as an executable. (just like .mos is special cased for that purpose in my OS )

thank you ^^ i think i might do that. thanks