getopt: ugly linker messages

Ivan Warren
Sun Sep 21 00:02:00 GMT 2003

> Sigh.  By "research", I meant dive into the binutils code and 
> figure out what is going wrong.

Geez.. You kidding me ? I mean, I wouldn't mind doing that.. But it would
probably take me a month or so to just figure out the basics of how it
works... Not to mention I have but very little understanding of how the 386
PE works (just enough to figure out there might be a problem with it when I
see one..). I really thought it'd be smarter to ask folks who are more
comfortable with it. (ps : I already did it for some gcc issues.. And it
took me ages just to figure out the architecture.. I'm pretty sure it'd be
the same with binutils)..

If I had made all that searching, spent a lot of time sorting out a
"binutils in 386 PE" environment issue, then I'm not spending time on the
project I usually work on.. And if I had found the issue & had a patch, I
definitelly wouldn't have asked a question. I would have proposed a patch.

> >Hopefully, I'll get a better response from the binutils 
> folks who may 
> >find a solution to an issue that DOES affect cygwin (and any other 
> >environment using the PE 386 object format).
> You already posted to the binutils mailing list, remember?

Yeah.. Of course I do remember that.. (not senile yet ;-) ).. But
unfortunatelly, I made the same mistake I did here : I told them I *DID*
post in the other forum. Thus leading to the effect that each list thinks
it's a problem that is in the other group field of expertise.

So my option is now to tell the binutils folks that the cygwin folks are
declaring this issue to be a binutils core issue and that it has nothing to
do with cygwin (although it does affect it).. Am I correct ?


Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

More information about the Cygwin mailing list