1.5.0 - showstopper?

Max Bowsher maxb@ukf.net
Wed Jul 16 10:06:00 GMT 2003

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:41:22AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 06:24:58PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>>> But, thanks to the new magic in the headers, is it possible that
>>>> symbols (like open, fopen, etc) do not get listed as "_imp__foo" in the
>>>> import lib, but are actually thunked to "foo" in the static portion of
>>>> the import lib?
>>> I think I've fixed the cygwin magic that creates the aliased functions
>>> such that replaced objects like "open" and "fopen" now look like other,
>>> normal import objects.  It seems to fix this problem in a simple test
>>> case, anyway.
>>> [...]
>> So, okay...
>> But I still think libcygwin.a should be added to the exlude libs list.
> I'm curious, does that still make sense now?  Should libcygwin.a be added
> to that list or is the problem ultimativly fixed by adding the appropriate
> symbols to libcygwin.a?  Somehow I'm missing the conclusion in this
> discussion.

There is at least one other problem that I think would be avoided if
libcygwin was in the excludes: currently, if you build a dll which uses
getopt, getopt will be reexported from the dll. Now try to link to the dll -
the linker complains because getopt is available in both the dll and

But I think is safe to say this is not a showstopper, since it has been this
way for quite some time.


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list