Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
content-class:	urn:content-classes:message
Subject:	RE: Excude whole libs when building w32 dlls with -export-all
MIME-Version:	1.0
Date:	Sun, 28 Apr 2002 03:35:33 +1000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
Message-ID:	<FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA7600C5F30@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	"Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Cc:	"Danny Smith" <danny_r_smith_2001 AT yahoo DOT co DOT nz>,
	"binutils" <binutils AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>,
	"cygwin-apps" <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g3RHZce20469

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu] 
> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 2:26 AM
> To: Robert Collins
> Cc: Danny Smith; binutils; cygwin-apps
> Subject: Re: Excude whole libs when building w32 dlls with -export-all
> 
> 
> Robert Collins wrote:
> 
> 
> > Can we detect libs and automatically exclude symbols from shared 
> > libraries?
> > 
> > i.e. when linking against libcygwin.a, ALL symbols therein 
> are from a 
> > dll, so -by default- should not be exported.
> 
> 
> Picky point: that's not true in this case.  libcygwin.a, unlike most 
> import libs, contains actual code as well as import thunks 
> for cygwin1.dll.

Yeah well :}. Actually most import libs can be considered to contain
code - that's what the standard stub is. The important point is not to
*ignore* the library, but to not *re-export* it's symbols.
 
> I dunno if we need something *less* granular (e.g. never never never 
> export ANY symbol of ANY kind that comes from *.dll) ... 
> maybe so.  But, 
> this is a separate argument from Danny's proposed patch.

True. However the current code in ld is a kludge. Always has-been, and
if not fixed... always will-be.
 
I too like the patch Danny has put forward, (not that I didn't speak
against it :]). I'm hoping to review Ralf's patch tomorrow & will try
and get to Danny's as well. I'm going to test on a non-HEAD ld, and if
that works correctly, then IMO it can go into HEAD... as long as that
part hasn't altered significantly between my testpoint and HEAD.

Rob

- Raw text -