Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:37:36 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: test version of gcc-2.95.2-9 will soon be available Message-ID: <20010311123736.A4886@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20010310173330.A24670@redhat.com> <3AAAC799.D2B38E9E@ece.gatech.edu> <20010310193652.A25135@redhat.com> <3AAAFF66.564FFC83@ece.gatech.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <3AAAFF66.564FFC83@ece.gatech.edu>; from cwilson@ece.gatech.edu on Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 11:30:30PM -0500 I will upload a new version of gcc in an hour or so. It will have --dll-search-prefix=cyg added to the (I hope) appropriate place and I will fix my boneheaded problem with -mwin32. I can't believe that I didn't check that. ...or actually I can. I've been having system problems that make it very hard for me to do work on my NT system. I think I solved them yesterday so I won't be able to use that excuse again. cgf On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 11:30:30PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 07:32:25PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >>>Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>> >>>>I've uploaded a new version of gcc to sources.redhat.com. It should be >>>>on mirrors soon. >>>> >>>>I've YA changed the specs file with regard to -mwin32 and mingw. >>>>-mno-cygwin defaults to -mwin32 automatically, now. -mno-cygwin should >>>>also default to using msvcrt automatically, matching the latest version >>>>of mingw, I hope. >>> >>>Did you add "--dll-search-prefix=cyg" to the spec file for cygwin >>>linking ? >> >>Um, no. That's a function of the linker, isn't it? > >It's in the current linker which was "released" on 21 Dec 2000; that >is, for more than three months. We were just waiting for the next gcc >release to put the switch into the specs. But then -7 had problems, >and there were delays... > >It's not really a big deal; I'd just rather that the switch was >included or not based on a *choice* rather than forgetfulness. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple