X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:45:34 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Linux vs Cygwin linkage Message-ID: <20060218184534.GC10380@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <1140287981.4091.76.camel@rosella.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1140287981.4091.76.camel@rosella.wigram> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 05:39:41AM +1100, skaller wrote: >I have found some unexpected differences between Cygwin and Linux. FYI >I think Cygwin is right, and Linux is wrong. > >What happens is I have a DLL P which depends on a DLL F and a DLL D. A >also depends on R. The executable depends on R D and F. > >Under Linux, I link P against F, and it works. IMHO this is just plain >wrong. It seems to be pooling symbols globally or something. > >Under Cygwin this does not happen. The link of P fails with an >undefined symbol from D. I think this is correct. > >If anyone can throw some light on this I'd appreciate it. Is it this >option:? > >--allow-shlib-undefined --no-allow-shlib-undefined Allows (the default) >or disallows undefined symbols in shared libraries. > >Can I fix that with > >-Wl,--no-allow-shlib-undefined > >switch to gcc, so Linux and Cygwin behave the same? This is a question for a linux mailing list. Why are you asking here? cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/