Re: [ITP, take 2] Re: [ITP] libelf

[Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>]

Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On 20/12/2009 20:02, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Because GCC needs everything else in libelf, in particular the functions,
>> not just the #defines, so I wanted it all to come from one nice 
>> consistent source.
> 
> Right, but if Cygwin's headers are missing something then they should be
> fixed.  Was there anything else missing that gcc exposed?

  Dunno; that was the first error during the build, and after I rebuilt my
libelf to not use cygwin's elf.h, I didn't see any more errors, so of course
there could have been other missing definitions if I had stuck with it and
tried compiling further source files.

>> Thanks, I'll fix those and then upload it myself in the next day or two. 
>> (Unless anyone wants me to post it here for a final review, in which case
>> just ask.)
> 
> Personally I don't think that will be necessary.
> 
> I'd wish you a happy Chanukah in return, but it's already over. :-)

  Just as well, my menorah blew a gasket at speed last winter and I haven't
patched the puncture yet :-)  Anyway, whatever faith ye follow or none, may ye
be blessed by His Noodly Appendage this winter.  Yarrr!  RAmen!

    cheers,
      DaveK