Mail Archives: cygwin/2009/02/20/10:23:53
On Feb 20 15:06, Dave Korn wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
> Ah. Right. Ouch. I see what's going on. Rebasing does not interact well
> with the presence of unresolved weaks. Gah.
> [...]
> I'll need to do some thinking about this, as it might be possible to make it
> work, but in any case, the rule should be that DLLs are *always* linked
> against shared-libgcc, regardless; even plain old C with no exceptions. It's
> OK if you're linking an entire app statically to link against static libgcc,
> but it's definitely bad practice when building a DLL. I should probably warn
> against this usage in the compiler, if not fail it altogether; not sure yet,
> because it does basically work, even if the DLL it produces isn't rebaseable,
> and because it might not be difficult to make rebase skip relocating
> unresolved weaks, and because I have this long-term scheme to make weaks work
> properly on win32 like they do on ELF which would avoid the problem altogether.
>
>
>
> Take-home point: never use -static-libgcc when building a DLL.
Baeh. The two of us discussed this in PM a couple of days back and I
still don't like the idea to depend on cyggcc_s.dll for more or less
every other package providing a DLL. If that's becoming the default, we
need at least to put the gcc-runtime package into Base, IMHO. Yes,
I know you can simply add the dependency to setup.hint, but still.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
--
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 -