This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] [1.7] Updated: file-5.00-1

On Feb 20 15:06, Dave Korn wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>   Ah.  Right.  Ouch.  I see what's going on.  Rebasing does not interact well
> with the presence of unresolved weaks.  Gah.
> [...]
>   I'll need to do some thinking about this, as it might be possible to make it
> work, but in any case, the rule should be that DLLs are *always* linked
> against shared-libgcc, regardless; even plain old C with no exceptions.  It's
> OK if you're linking an entire app statically to link against static libgcc,
> but it's definitely bad practice when building a DLL.  I should probably warn
> against this usage in the compiler, if not fail it altogether; not sure yet,
> because it does basically work, even if the DLL it produces isn't rebaseable,
> and because it might not be difficult to make rebase skip relocating
> unresolved weaks, and because I have this long-term scheme to make weaks work
> properly on win32 like they do on ELF which would avoid the problem altogether.
>   Take-home point: never use -static-libgcc when building a DLL.

Baeh.  The two of us discussed this in PM a couple of days back and I
still don't like the idea to depend on cyggcc_s.dll for more or less
every other package providing a DLL.  If that's becoming the default, we
need at least to put the gcc-runtime package into Base, IMHO.  Yes,
I know you can simply add the dependency to setup.hint, but still.


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]