This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: bug in binutils-20010425-2 tarball
- To: <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Subject: RE: bug in binutils-20010425-2 tarball
- From: "John A. Shoemaker" <jashoemaker at pinksheets dot com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:01:54 -0400
Sorry, Just when I installed from that tarball, I couldn't get compiles to
work. (What I was attempting to do was recompile AfterStep.)
I checked the tarball I dl'd and it looks ok now.
It looks like setup was just failing to install binutils and I wasn't seeing
an error message (I wasn't watching the update so it may have shown one...).
When I installed the -1 version I did it from bash.
I appreciate you taking time to respond. Cygwin is a great utility.
Thank You
John A. Shoemaker
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf@redhat.com]
>Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 10:31
>To: cygwin@cygwin.com
>Cc: jashoemaker@pinksheets.com
>Subject: Re: bug in binutils-20010425-2 tarball
>
>
>On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 08:10:48AM -0400, John A. Shoemaker wrote:
>>The binutils-20010425-2 tarball contains the wrong version of ld. When you
>>try to compile with gcc, it throws an error regarding the
>dll-search-prefix
>>switch. I downloaded the binutils-20010425-1 tarball and it
>didn't have this
>>problem.
>
>So, your theory is that the "ld" package, released more than a
>month ago, and
>used by everyone who uses gcc is broken and you are the first
>person to notice?
>
>Or are you supplying some special options to gcc/ld which lead you to be
>convinced of this?
>
>cgf
>
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple