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
X-Sent:	4 Jun 2001 15:01:57 GMT
From:	"John A. Shoemaker" <jashoemaker AT pinksheets DOT com>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: bug in binutils-20010425-2 tarball
Date:	Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:01:54 -0400
Message-ID:	<NEBBIILHBFCCLODBLECCOEGPAPAB.jashoemaker@pinksheets.com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
In-Reply-To:	<20010604103117.C9250@redhat.com>

Sorry, Just when I installed from that tarball, I couldn't get compiles to
work.  (What I was attempting to do was recompile AfterStep.)
I checked the tarball I dl'd and it looks ok now.
It looks like setup was just failing to install binutils and I wasn't seeing
an error message (I wasn't watching the update so it may have shown one...).

When I installed the -1 version I did it from bash.

I appreciate you taking time to respond. Cygwin is a great utility.

Thank You
John A. Shoemaker

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com]
>Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 10:31
>To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
>Cc: jashoemaker AT pinksheets DOT com
>Subject: Re: bug in binutils-20010425-2 tarball
>
>
>On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 08:10:48AM -0400, John A. Shoemaker wrote:
>>The binutils-20010425-2 tarball contains the wrong version of ld. When you
>>try to compile with gcc, it throws an error regarding the
>dll-search-prefix
>>switch. I downloaded the binutils-20010425-1 tarball and it
>didn't have this
>>problem.
>
>So, your theory is that the "ld" package, released more than a
>month ago, and
>used by everyone who uses gcc is broken and you are the first
>person to notice?
>
>Or are you supplying some special options to gcc/ld which lead you to be
>convinced of this?
>
>cgf
>


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -