Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-Id:	<200007312201.AA09210@mlx.com>
Mime-Version:	1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v148.2.1)
From:	MarketLogix <mlx AT mlx DOT com>
Date:	Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:01:16 -0700
To:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Upgrading from b20.1 to 1.1.x - now my static linking fails !
Cc:	cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Reply-To:	mlx AT san DOT rr DOT com
References:	<200007311649 DOT AA08997 AT mlx DOT com>
	<200007311800 DOT OAA23243 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<200007311832 DOT AA09069 AT mlx DOT com>
	<200007311852 DOT OAA26794 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>

I made an educated guess and did this:

1. Went to a mirror and got /pub/sourceware/release/binutils-2.10.tar.gz.
2. Built & installed it over /cygwin/usr.

That fixed the static linking problem but now my .dll fails to load right !

The circle begins - stuffed at the line of scrimage again !

Is that gcc-2.92.2-2 incompatible with the 6/00 "release" version of binutils ?
Should I roll back to the 10/99 "release" version of gcc-2.95.2 ?

What is considered stable ? How do I get in sync ?

Thanks again.

bisk

Begin forwarded message:

Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:52:50 -0400
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: mlx AT san DOT rr DOT com
In-reply-to: <200007311832 DOT AA09069 AT mlx DOT com> (message from MarketLogix on  
Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:32:47 -0700)
Subject: Re: Upgrading from b20.1 to 1.1.x  - now my static linking fails !

> But some basic utilities were missing like env and mount so

mount.exe is in cygwin
env.exe is in shellutils
both are in the net release.

> Do you think that the setup/CD install/setup caused this problem ?

No.

> I've got to believe that many folks have installed the net release
> over the CD, no ?

Yes, but for new installations you don't need both.

> I don't remember what I chose as far as "dos text" vs. binary.
> If there's a default, that's probably what I took.

Shouldn't make much of a difference.

> Should I clear out the /etc/setup directory and run setup again ?
> Choosing binary at the install prompt ?

No, just use "mount -f ..." to change the mount points.  Read the
online user's guide for info.  I use text mounts.  Chris uses binary
mounts.  Both should work.

> I don't really have much to lose at this point ...

I would suggest trying the CVS version of binutils.  Else, use "gcc -S
..."  to see if it's the compiler or the assembler or whatever that's

messing up the symbols.


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -