X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:23:30 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] [1.7] Updated: file-5.00-1 Message-ID: <20090220152330.GG24834@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <499E2B9A.5030907@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <20090220095916.GA759@calimero.vinschen.de> <499EB5A6.5000707@gmail.com> <499EBABE.8080303@gmail.com> <499EC6E5.5000408@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <499EC6E5.5000408@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: 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 Feb 20 15:06, Dave Korn wrote: > Dave Korn wrote: > Ah. Right. Ouch. I see what's going on. Rebasing does not interact well > with the presence of unresolved weaks. Gah. > [...] > I'll need to do some thinking about this, as it might be possible to make it > work, but in any case, the rule should be that DLLs are *always* linked > against shared-libgcc, regardless; even plain old C with no exceptions. It's > OK if you're linking an entire app statically to link against static libgcc, > but it's definitely bad practice when building a DLL. I should probably warn > against this usage in the compiler, if not fail it altogether; not sure yet, > because it does basically work, even if the DLL it produces isn't rebaseable, > and because it might not be difficult to make rebase skip relocating > unresolved weaks, and because I have this long-term scheme to make weaks work > properly on win32 like they do on ELF which would avoid the problem altogether. > > > > Take-home point: never use -static-libgcc when building a DLL. Baeh. The two of us discussed this in PM a couple of days back and I still don't like the idea to depend on cyggcc_s.dll for more or less every other package providing a DLL. If that's becoming the default, we need at least to put the gcc-runtime package into Base, IMHO. Yes, I know you can simply add the dependency to setup.hint, but still. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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/