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: <39860032.5CFA060B@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:39:46 -0400
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; 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> <3985FA17 DOT 7E725ED9 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <200007312219 DOT AA09223 AT mlx DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Okay, sorry -- I didn't connect your message with the other ones. I
can't offer any cogent advice -- except "it works for me". zlib, libpng,
libjpeg, libjbig, libtiff -- all contain dll and static lib, I built
both dynamically-linked and statically-linked executables for each
package, and they all worked -- linking with an import lib, and with the
static lib, and directly to the dll using ld.exe's new ability to
generate a "virtual" import lib on-the-fly.

So, it seems you've stumbled on an obscure bug -- I'd concentrate on
what you're doing that is *different* from normal dll usage -- like that
funky stdcall wrapper dllinit thingy... BTW, did you use
--enable-stdcall-fixup and/or --add-stdcall-alias as linker options when
building your dll/import library?

--Chuck


MarketLogix wrote:
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> But let me resummarize what I've got so far ...
> 
> 1st scenario:
> 
> gcc-2.95.2-2 + latest/binutils = good .dll / .exe static link failures .
> 
> 2nd scenario:
> 
> gcc-2.95.2-2 + release/binutils = bad .dll / .exe static links fine .
> 
> If interested, please see earlier messages of this thread ...
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> bisk
> 
> Begin forwarded message:

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