Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/08/26/11:25:14
[This isn't xfree-related. Redirected to cygwin AT cygwin DOT com]
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 04:15:50PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> >> Would it be a problem to create the symlinks to be libxyz.a instead of
> >> libxyz.dll.a in future releases or use the same names of the
> >> importlibraries as it was before, without version included?
>
> > No. There are two types of import libs:
>
> > libfoo.dll.a which results in linking against the apropriate DLL and
> > libfoo.a which is the static lib. This scheme has been settled already
> > loooong ago and is obeyed by binutils. If the configuration script
> > gets this wrong, the configuration script should be fixed.
>
> Hmmm, since there are no .dll.a import libraries on linux, pretty much
> configure scripts are failing at this point. It works well as long as
> static and import libraries are provided as it is the case with the most
> packages, but if there are no static libraries, what is lost if there
> are no .dll.a files?
Reliability? You never know from the name if it's a shared or a static
import lib.
The configuration script is just faulty. A configuration script should
test if linking against -lfoo works, not if there's a library called
libfoo.a. It's not exactly right to assume that all platforms are using
this naming scheme. A platform might as well use foo.lib or something
entirely different. Or, even simpler, as on Linux where libfoo.so is ok,
too. Does the script test for .so files? If so, why not testing for
.dll.a files as well?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -