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 X-Authentication-Warning: hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu: khan owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:19:45 -0500 (CDT) From: Mumit Khan To: Christopher Faylor Subject: Re: Does -mno-cygwin sometimes have no effect? In-Reply-To: <20010711231306.D1501@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote: > Even if there was an easy way to detect this scenario, I think that > adding the detection to ld would be a lot of work. ld doesn't > understand the -mno-cygwin option. That's a gcc option. I agree. Not will it involve lots of work, it will still remain error- prone, defeating the purpose of it. > This is not something that I'm interested in doing. I don't know if > anyone else wants to take a stab at it. I can't guarantee that a > patch would be accepted by the binutils PE maintainer (DJ), however. > I suspect that it could be pretty intrusive in bfd/ld. As far as binutils is concerned, there is no difference between cygwin and mingw BFDs -- both are PE format files. I did do some work a long time ago by injecting special strings in object files that the linker could check for consistency, but that was also troublesome and unlikely to be accepted by binutils maintainers, for good reason. Regards, Mumit -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/