| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> writes: > > > >pro: > > - using ld (as opposed to gcc) will work as expected. Lots of configure > > script will run `ld ... -lc' etc. I consider it bad practice in > > general, but it's out there. This currently doesn't work either. > > This is a pretty big pro. If a configure script can find the right stuff > in a libc.a then this is a big win. Agreed. > >con: > > - non-cygwin apps can't look inside libc.a or libm.a. This may or may > > not be an issue, but something to think about. > > I don't think we should worry about this. I'm talking about providing > a Cygwin distribution. I don't care if something else breaks. Agreed. > >For a few 100k extra disk space, we could just hard link it (which will > >eventually not copy when Cygwin supports native hard linking). > > Cygwin does support hard linking on NT. On 95/98, I think we'd find > that libc.a would get out of sync with libcygwin.a. I should've mentioned w9x. I don't know anything about w2k. I vote for linking both libc.a and libm.a to libcygwin.a. In the future, we should probably use -lc in gcc config files as well, but that's not something we need to think about right now. Regards, Mumit
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |