Overlay index in SEGDEF is zero

This is a bug report:

Overlay index values in SEGDEF/SEGDEF32 records the compiler is spitting out
are set to zero.  This violates original Intel OMF spec and TIS specs.  Its
already emitting a null LNAMES string (usually as the 3rd LNAME in the
list).  Using the index of a null LNAME string is the correct way to do this
rather than using zero.

Omitting the version of a program in a problem report limits the value of 
the report.  What version of Borland C++ was used to develop the information 
in your report?

.  Ed

> cutaway wrote in message
> news:45b8e6c8@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> This is a bug report:
>
> Overlay index values in SEGDEF/SEGDEF32 records the compiler
> is spitting out are set to zero.  This violates original Intel OMF spec
> and TIS specs.  Its already emitting a null LNAMES string (usually
> as the 3rd LNAME in the list).  Using the index of a null LNAME
> string is the correct way to do this rather than using zero.

All 32 bit versions after BC 4.52.  Basically anything with the newer
backend.  All record checksums are also bogus always being zero.  The 16 bit
compilers did correct checksums.

"Ed Mulroy" <dont_email_me@bitbuc.ket> wrote in message
news:45b8e9be$1@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Omitting the version of a program in a problem report limits the value of
> the report.  What version of Borland C++ was used to develop the
information
> in your report?
>
> .  Ed

A trouble report was publicly acknowledged and posted in 1996 about overlays 
using Borland C++ 5 and above.  The linker incorrectly implemented overlays. 
To correct it use the linker from BC++ 4.5, a product whose CD shipped with 
BC++ versions 5.*.

Please post Borland C++ questions in the newsgroup where it is covered,
  borland.public.cpp.borlandcpp

As you can see from the 'cppbuilder' in its name, this group is for Borland 
C++ Builder, the current compiler.  It is 32 bit only and does not do 
overlays.

.  Ed

> cutaway wrote in message
> news:45b90504@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> All 32 bit versions after BC 4.52.  Basically anything with the newer
> backend.  All record checksums are also bogus always being zero.
> The 16 bit compilers did correct checksums.

Ummm...this has NOTHING to do with using overlays.  This is about bogus
index values when you're NOT DOING OVERLAYS.

Builder is indicating the NON-PRESENSE of overlays incorrectly.

BTW, TASM32 is *NOT* afflicted with this disease, so if zero indexes are be
your new (non)standard, then you need to fix (break) TASM32 to make it
consistent with the BUILDER product.

So which is it to be?  Is Builder broken or is TASM32 broken?

Pick one.  You can't have it both ways.

"Ed Mulroy" <dont_email_me@bitbuc.ket> wrote in message
news:45b93f5e@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> As you can see from the 'cppbuilder' in its name, this group is for
Borland
> C++ Builder, the current compiler.  It is 32 bit only and does not do
> overlays.
>
> .  Ed