X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TW_YG X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4D835489.3020601@cwilson.fastmail.fm> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:48:09 -0400 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: gcc4 outstanding issues (was Re: Cygport woes: CHOST not defined.) References: <4D826382.2090000@gmail.com> <1300416654.2280.5.camel@YAAKOV04> <4D82EB32.9010101@gmail.com> <1300439195.2280.47.camel@YAAKOV04> In-Reply-To: <1300439195.2280.47.camel@YAAKOV04> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 3/18/2011 5:06 AM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > BTW, I wonder if we can begin mitigating (2) by not shipping the .la > files with GCC. This would stop those paths from being hardcoded into > other .la files, so that eventually only the libtool scripts will need > to be fixed. Yes, please. I think this should be done, upstream (4.7?), as well. There is no need for runtime libraries to have .la files IMO -- having them needlessly complicates, and provides no benefit (is it even supported, by gcc-devs, to dlopen/ltopen a runtime library, on all platforms?) -- Chuck -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple