Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com From: Tor Lillqvist MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14766.41758.390000.471560@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 21:25:34 +0300 (FLE Daylight Time) To: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Subject: Re[2]: DLL naming conventions In-Reply-To: <3623.000831@is.lg.ua> References: <39AD1F78 DOT 4F5EAABE AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3623 DOT 000831 AT is DOT lg DOT ua> X-Mailer: VM 6.73 under Emacs 20.4.1 Paul Sokolovsky writes: > GIMP's stupid shrink-wrapped installer drop its to > windows/system). No it doesn't. (It did at some point, a long time ago.) Currently it puts the DLLs in \Program Files\Common Files\GNU. Currently the GIMP for Windows does not use DLLs for the JPEG, Zlib or TIFF libraries, precisely because of the lack of consensus in naming etc. And if there is anything to learn from this discussion, it is that it is best to stick to static libraries in the future, too... One point that has not been brought up here is that it is not enough that some library's API is stable, like for instance zlib. The ABI must also be identical in order to be able to share the same DLL between applications from different sources. With this I am thinking of struct packing issues, i.e. whether gcc compilations use -fnative-struct (MSVC-compatible bitfield packing) or not. Sorry that this is mostly off-topic to the cygwin list. --tml -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com