Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <3985FA17.7E725ED9@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:13:43 -0400
From: "Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mlx AT san DOT rr DOT com
CC: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: Upgrading from b20.1 to 1.1.x  - now my static linking fails !
References: <200007311649 DOT AA08997 AT mlx DOT com>
		<200007311800 DOT OAA23243 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
		<200007311832 DOT AA09069 AT mlx DOT com>
		<200007311852 DOT OAA26794 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <200007312201 DOT AA09210 AT mlx DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

No no no. Download and install 'binutils-20000722-1.tar.gz' from
cygwin/latest/binutils. Setup would have done this for you. It seems you
are trying to outsmart the installation program, and have ended up
shooting yourself in the foot.

(There was a 6/00 release of binutils -- binutils-20000625 -- but it had
problems. That's why there is now a -20000722 release).

--Chuck

MarketLogix wrote:
> 
> I made an educated guess and did this:
> 
> 1. Went to a mirror and got /pub/sourceware/release/binutils-2.10.tar.gz.
> 2. Built & installed it over /cygwin/usr.
> 
> That fixed the static linking problem but now my .dll fails to load right !
> 
> The circle begins - stuffed at the line of scrimage again !
> 
> Is that gcc-2.92.2-2 incompatible with the 6/00 "release" version of binutils ?
> Should I roll back to the 10/99 "release" version of gcc-2.95.2 ?
> 
> What is considered stable ? How do I get in sync ?
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> bisk
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:52:50 -0400
> From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
> To: mlx AT san DOT rr DOT com
> In-reply-to: <200007311832 DOT AA09069 AT mlx DOT com> (message from MarketLogix on
> Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:32:47 -0700)
> Subject: Re: Upgrading from b20.1 to 1.1.x  - now my static linking fails !
> 
> > But some basic utilities were missing like env and mount so
> 
> mount.exe is in cygwin
> env.exe is in shellutils
> both are in the net release.
> 
> > Do you think that the setup/CD install/setup caused this problem ?
> 
> No.
> 
> > I've got to believe that many folks have installed the net release
> > over the CD, no ?
> 
> Yes, but for new installations you don't need both.
> 
> > I don't remember what I chose as far as "dos text" vs. binary.
> > If there's a default, that's probably what I took.
> 
> Shouldn't make much of a difference.
> 
> > Should I clear out the /etc/setup directory and run setup again ?
> > Choosing binary at the install prompt ?
> 
> No, just use "mount -f ..." to change the mount points.  Read the
> online user's guide for info.  I use text mounts.  Chris uses binary
> mounts.  Both should work.
> 
> > I don't really have much to lose at this point ...
> 
> I would suggest trying the CVS version of binutils.  Else, use "gcc -S
> ..."  to see if it's the compiler or the assembler or whatever that's
> 
> messing up the symbols.
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com