Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2007-04-11) |
| Re: Free x86 C compiler wanted kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk (2007-04-13) |
| Re: Windows executables, was Free x86 C compiler wanted marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2007-04-14) |
| From: | Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 14 Apr 2007 20:44:24 -0400 |
| Organization: | Stack Usenet News Service |
| References: | 07-04-033 07-04-050 |
| Keywords: | Windows |
| Posted-Date: | 14 Apr 2007 20:44:24 EDT |
On 2007-04-13, kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk <kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>> Also, I believe that at
>> least the later versions of DOS and most Windows will load EXE
>> files with a COM extension. That was done for FORMAT, for
>> example.
>
> DOS decided what an executable format actually was by reading a header
> in the program IIRC. The file designation COM, EXE etc. was only used to
> decide what was executable and what was data. I don't know when it was
> introduced but IIRC Windows 3.1 had a list of executable file types that
> could be edited by the user.
Afaik Windows still has this in principle. However I don't know what
the recent SP2 changes did to this. The list describes which file
extensions are to be handled by the system (the core shell), and the
system itself decides
A lot of the worm activity was related to this list (that listed among
others .pif .scr .vbs and many more), because this way one could
circumvent Exchange/Outlook restrictions on .exe, since the kernel
would also execute the .scr, AND outlook wouldn't display known
extensions.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.