Can you make a DLL from a library that requires caller-defined functions?

Christopher Faylor
Thu Aug 7 23:10:00 GMT 2008

On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 04:03:32PM -0700, Michael Rogers wrote:
>Sorry Yaakov.  I didn't mean to be annoying.  You've been very helpful.
>I'll work on it tonight and send you more info tonight or tomorrow when
>I have it available.  Basically all I meant by "not viable" was that
>the executibles aren't working.  If the makefile procedure for building
>a library will work here and that's the right thing to do, that's
>great.  Hopefully, I haven't been chasing a red herring.  I had been
>assuming that I needed to use the linker to resolve everything when you
>built up the library, since that's the way you do it for DLLs.  The
>problem must be something else entirely.  It's probably just that I'm
>not resolving everything when I try to link with the executible, or
>it's passing some pointer variable wrong or something like that.  I'll
>try to send more helpful info on my next email, if I haven't already
>figured the problem out myself.

I hope that the helpful info will verify that you understand that you
don't use gcc to produce a static library.  It isn't clear that you
grokked that one.


Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

More information about the Cygwin-xfree mailing list