Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/05/20/11:08:31
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 09:43:40PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu]
>> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 6:44 PM
>
>> Two ideas:
>> 1) making auto-import the default
>> 2) turning off the warnings
>>
>> You appear to not like either one. I don't really care about the
>> warnings, but the auto-import thing should be default. However, I
>> wonder how long these "warnings" are going to persist. Using
>> auto-import is not a *bug* or *oops, I forgot to declspec()
>> something*
>> -- it's the way DLLs are done.
>
>But it's not complete. One cannot link against all .dll's with
>auto-import, and no speed tests of normal vs auto-import have been
>seriously conducted. I still maintain that a profile driven
>recompile+link is the way to go, and that when that's done auto-import
>can be tossed out.
>
>> I look at auto-import as "the new and better and more unixlike way of
>> building shared libs". You seem to view them as "nice
>> feature, but you
>> really ought to do it the old-fashioned way". In my view,
>> the warnings
>> go away eventually -- they were just there during the "trial phase",
>> which has now stretched to a REALLY long time. In your view, the
>> warnings are TRUE warnings about BAD programming practice,
>> and stay forever.
>
>The warnings should stay IMO. They aren't errors, but they are
>important.
Since --auto-import has been the default for the last version of binutils,
I think we should leave it that way.
I think we should keep the warnings if --auto-import isn't specified on the
command line but get rid of them if it is explictly specified. Including
--auto-import on the command line would indicate that the user knows what
they're doing, so they don't need to see warnings.
Basically, I don't like being warned about something when there is no
way to turn off the warning.
cgf
- Raw text -