Delivered-To: listarch-cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:53:37 -0800
From: Geoffrey Noer <noer AT cygnus DOT com>
To: Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu>
Cc: John Fortin <fortinj AT ibm DOT net>,
        "'cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com'" <cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Subject: Re: ld, dlls, and windows libraries
Message-ID: <19990212165337.A12157@cygnus.com>
References: <36C4582C DOT A302D915 AT ibm DOT net> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 93 DOT 990212113933 DOT 18731B-100000 AT modi DOT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.93.990212113933.18731B-100000@modi.xraylith.wisc.edu>; from Mumit Khan on Fri, Feb 12, 1999 at 11:56:49AM -0600

On Fri, Feb 12, 1999, Mumit Khan wrote:
[...]
> <gratuitous gripe mode> I frequently see folks using ld to build DLLs,
> and run into all sorts of problems. Why use ld when gcc does all of
> this and more?? Is it because Cygwin User Guide shows the most 
> convoluted and error-prone way to build DLLs? Also interesting is the 
> aversion to using the search facility in the mailing list where I and 
> others have posted info on portably building DLLs many many times. 
> <off now, whew!>

FYI, the example in the User's Guide now calls gcc instead of ld.

-- 
Geoffrey Noer		Email: noer AT cygnus DOT com
Cygnus Solutions