Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Sat, 9 Nov 2002 13:35:12 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: binutils 20021107-2
Message-ID:	<20021109183512.GA17700@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20021109105904 DOT 24937 DOT qmail AT web21405 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> <1036844910 DOT 31190 DOT 0 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <3DCD4623 DOT 8070800 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3DCD4691 DOT 1070601 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20021109181030 DOT GB16969 AT redhat DOT com> <3DCD520A DOT 6090504 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3DCD5420 DOT 5000406 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<3DCD5420.5000406@ece.gatech.edu>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.1i

On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 01:29:52PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Charles Wilson wrote:
>>>>Oops.  Previous patch still left a chunk of Egor's changes.  New 
>>>>patch replaces.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How about submitting the patch to the binutils mailing list?
>>>
>>
>>
>>I've no objections -- but the patch is a workaround for a 
>>cygwin-specific packaging decision (e.g. providing gcc-2.95.3 as "gcc-2" 
>>and renaming the runtime libs accordingly).
>>
>>Is that something that should go into the "real" binutils CVS, or should 
>>it be kept in the cygwin binutils package only?
>
>Another alternative -- slightly more general (don't include the "." 
>char, and take advantage of the fact that we only check the first N 
>characters of the name).

Shouldn't there be a few more entries in this list, like libmingwex,
libmingwthrd, libmsvcrt (maybe).  I don't know if any of those libraries
have globals that could be erroneously exported but doesn't it pay to
be safe?

cgf

>Index: pe-dll.c
>===================================================================
>RCS file: /cvs/src/src/ld/pe-dll.c,v
>retrieving revision 1.45
>diff -u -r1.45 pe-dll.c
>--- pe-dll.c	6 Nov 2002 19:36:20 -0000	1.45
>+++ pe-dll.c	9 Nov 2002 18:28:56 -0000
>@@ -228,12 +229,12 @@
> /* Do not specify library suffix explicitly, to allow for dllized versions.  */
> static autofilter_entry_type autofilter_liblist[] =
> {
>-  { "libgcc.", 7 },
>-  { "libstdc++.", 10 },
>-  { "libmingw32.", 11 },
>-  { "libg2c.", 7 },
>-  { "libsupc++.", 10 },
>-  { "libobjc.", 8 },
>+  { "libgcc", 6 },
>+  { "libstdc++", 9 },
>+  { "libmingw32", 10 },
>+  { "libg2c", 6 },
>+  { "libsupc++", 9 },
>+  { "libobjc", 7 },
>   { NULL, 0 }
> };
> 
>

>--
>Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
>Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
>FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -