X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:45:51 +0200
From:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: All clear [was Re: [1.7]: For the love of god, don't update!]
Message-ID:	<20090407074551.GA20277@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<49D97797 DOT 9080902 AT gmail DOT com> <49DA0FE6 DOT 6020603 AT gmail DOT com> <20090406141856 DOT GA19965 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <49DA244E DOT 3080401 AT gmail DOT com> <20090406162943 DOT GA8149 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20090406173354 DOT GA20463 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20090406180833 DOT GR852 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20090406212230 DOT GB15228 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <49DA8C77 DOT 3030005 AT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<49DA8C77.3030005@gmail.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-02-20)
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

On Apr  7 00:12, Dave Korn wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 08:08:33PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> On Apr  6 13:33, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 06:29:43PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>> Wouldn't it help if libc.a, libm.a etc. wouldn't export any symbols at
> >>>> all?  I mean, eventually there's libcygwin.a linked in which satisfies
> >>>> all of the requested symbols.  What would break if the secondary libs
> >>>> pointing to cygwin1.dll would be stubs?
> >>> We rehashed all of this years ago.  IIRC, some configuration scripts
> >>> actually look for symbols explicitly in the libraries.
> >> Hmm, too bad.  So it was a naive thought.
> > 
> > I think I had the same thought while resisting the whole concept of
> > speclib.
> > 
> > Maybe I should have resisted harder.
> 
>   I think there's a strong argument that those configuation scripts are doing
> a very wrong thing in that they're trying to second-guess internal
> implementation details of the operating environment.  If you remember, was
> there a good reason why they couldn't answer the same questions solely using
> link tests?  Grepping through library symbols seems quite fragile when so many
> standard C library functions are permitted to be implemented as macros.

I assume they use nm rather than grep.

But maybe we should give up on such broken configure scripts?


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 -