This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Object code on December 2011. The result of the discussion was Not to merge. |
This article appears to be a little inconsistent. It starts off saying object formats are intermediate representations, citing COFF and ELF. All good stuff (and although you can execute ELF files, they can contain all the symbolic and linkable stuff that I would suggest designate an object file). It then goes on to state that 'COM' is an object format, which I would suggest it isn't - COM is an executable format, as is PE (which stands for Portable Executable, ). And COM is no simpler than the executable images you would find on ROMs in embedded systems. Any objections to me removing references to COM and PE? There should probably be an article on 'executable image', which also references Executable and Linkable Format, but lists COM, PE, .exe, etc. . -- 81.106.187.101 22:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
EXE is not properly a file format. There have been at least three Microsoft formats which used that "extension" (of which the latest is properly called PE after its Magic_number, in addition to numerous DEC operating systems and IBM's OS/2, all of which had their own formats. 18.24.0.120 06:18, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There should be something here on the old DOS .OBJ files, which I believe were in a format called OMF (although I'm pretty sure it's not the same OMF described already). I also think the "proprietary" format used by Borland toolsets (as mentioned above) is the same format. JulesH 11:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
So, why is it called an "object" file anyway? Is there any historical significance of the word "object"? The reasons for it seem awfully vague to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.10.234 ( talk) 12:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
OMF is an Intel TIS standard. I started out trying to find a reference for the definition of "object file" at the start of the article and ran into a problem. The only cite I can find is from a Google eBook that cites this article as a reference! Everything I've been able to find starts out by assuming the reader knows what an "object file" is. Peter Flass ( talk) 18:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Object module redirects to this article. Is there something special about it compared to object file? -- Abdull ( talk) 09:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Object code is simply the result of compiling source code and isn't necessarily machine code (a number of compilers for functional languages have used C as their object code for example, and javac uses JVM bytecode). The first source I can find online is [1], but I've seen this definition in works dating back to the 60s and I'm sure it's present in a good many works on compilers. 86.10.90.232 ( talk) 12:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
How about the following as a definition of object file? (with appropriate links, they apparently got lost when I cut and pasted)
"An object file is a file containing relocatable format machine code that is usually not directly executable. Object files are produced by an assembler, compiler, or other language translator, and used as input to the linker.
Additionally, object files may contain metadata such as information to resolve symbolic cross-references between different modules, relocation information, stack unwinding information, comments, program symbols, debugging or profiling information). A linker is typically used to generate an executable or library by combining parts of object files." Peter Flass ( talk) 03:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Object code#Merger proposal for discussion.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Object code on December 2011. The result of the discussion was Not to merge. |
This article appears to be a little inconsistent. It starts off saying object formats are intermediate representations, citing COFF and ELF. All good stuff (and although you can execute ELF files, they can contain all the symbolic and linkable stuff that I would suggest designate an object file). It then goes on to state that 'COM' is an object format, which I would suggest it isn't - COM is an executable format, as is PE (which stands for Portable Executable, ). And COM is no simpler than the executable images you would find on ROMs in embedded systems. Any objections to me removing references to COM and PE? There should probably be an article on 'executable image', which also references Executable and Linkable Format, but lists COM, PE, .exe, etc. . -- 81.106.187.101 22:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
EXE is not properly a file format. There have been at least three Microsoft formats which used that "extension" (of which the latest is properly called PE after its Magic_number, in addition to numerous DEC operating systems and IBM's OS/2, all of which had their own formats. 18.24.0.120 06:18, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There should be something here on the old DOS .OBJ files, which I believe were in a format called OMF (although I'm pretty sure it's not the same OMF described already). I also think the "proprietary" format used by Borland toolsets (as mentioned above) is the same format. JulesH 11:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
So, why is it called an "object" file anyway? Is there any historical significance of the word "object"? The reasons for it seem awfully vague to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.10.234 ( talk) 12:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
OMF is an Intel TIS standard. I started out trying to find a reference for the definition of "object file" at the start of the article and ran into a problem. The only cite I can find is from a Google eBook that cites this article as a reference! Everything I've been able to find starts out by assuming the reader knows what an "object file" is. Peter Flass ( talk) 18:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Object module redirects to this article. Is there something special about it compared to object file? -- Abdull ( talk) 09:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Object code is simply the result of compiling source code and isn't necessarily machine code (a number of compilers for functional languages have used C as their object code for example, and javac uses JVM bytecode). The first source I can find online is [1], but I've seen this definition in works dating back to the 60s and I'm sure it's present in a good many works on compilers. 86.10.90.232 ( talk) 12:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
How about the following as a definition of object file? (with appropriate links, they apparently got lost when I cut and pasted)
"An object file is a file containing relocatable format machine code that is usually not directly executable. Object files are produced by an assembler, compiler, or other language translator, and used as input to the linker.
Additionally, object files may contain metadata such as information to resolve symbolic cross-references between different modules, relocation information, stack unwinding information, comments, program symbols, debugging or profiling information). A linker is typically used to generate an executable or library by combining parts of object files." Peter Flass ( talk) 03:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Object code#Merger proposal for discussion.