Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/01/09/15:59:52
Earnie Boyd wrote:
>>>
>>I'm confused. What's all this talk about needing "new" binutils?
>>
>
> Yep, I'd say. My guess is that Stipe is using a cross buiold platform
> that doesn't include your change. Therefore he has to hard code the
> prefix in filename translations in the Makefile.in or what ever the
> configuration files are named.
No, you're missing my point. You STILL have to hardcode the output
filename of the DLL when you are CREATING the dll. Even WITH the "new"
binutils.
The ONLY time my --dll-search-prefix helps is when you are LINKING to a
DLL and you do NOT have the import lib handy. That's all it was created
for.
When *creating* the DLL, 'gcc -shared' doesn't magically decide to add
'cyg' to the -o filename -- any more than it previously magically added
'lib'. It didn't and it doesn't.
My point: he must muck with Makefile.in or whatnot in ANY case -- new
binutils or old.
Now, if you're talking about the .exe creation phase, when httpd.exe is
linked against libhttpd.dll it might not work IF:
a) old binutils
b) AND dll is named cyghttpd.dll
c) AND you don't have an import lib
Well, my "fix" for that problem is: during the DLL build phase (since
both libhttpd.dll and httpd.exe are both from the same package) generate
an import lib and link against that instead. (Because you really
shouldn't be linking directly against a DLL anyway except in "emergency"
situations -- vitual implibs cannot provide the auto-import fixups, for
instance, or static methods (libcygwin.a, libncurses++.dll.a))
--Chuck
- Raw text -