This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [RFA] pei386 dll: auto-import patch
- To: Paul Sokolovsky <Paul dot Sokolovsky at technologist dot com>
- Subject: Re: [RFA] pei386 dll: auto-import patch
- From: Robert Collins <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- Date: 05 Aug 2001 11:26:50 +1000
- Cc: Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>, Danny Smith <danny_r_smith_2001 at yahoo dot co dot nz>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <616.010805@technologist.com>
On 05 Aug 2001 00:23:58 +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> Thanks for all your work on supporting and lobbying the
> patch in question. Thanks to binutils maintainers for accepting it
> (heh, it was committed on a right day - I had birthday then, it was a
> good present, thanks ;-) ). Sorry that I didn't participate in the
> discussion - I was in the other city with little chance to access my
> mail and with no access to my devel machine.
Happy birthday then :}.
> 2. Presuppositions for using auto-import
>
> To use aut-import, you must have new-fashion import library [for those
> symbols which gets auto-imported], period. New-fashion implibs are
> produced by the new (auto-import-patched) ld. Hence, auto-import won't
> work with:
>
> 2.1. implibs made by old ld
> 2.2. implibs made by dlltool
>
> Additionally, it won't work when:
>
> 2.3. linking directly against dll
>
> The last case may need to be fixed somewhen.
Let me confirm I understand this:
1) The .dll created by --export-all-symbols and the new ld is _no_
different than an old style dll.
2) The import library contains all the hints necessary to allow
--auto-import to work.
3) Can we _in theory_ create new import libraries for ms dll's, and
dll's built with old ld's?
4) If so, how hard a patch to dlltool would that be?
Rob