Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Authentication-Warning: eos.vss.fsi.com: ford owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:58:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brian Ford <ford AT vss DOT fsi DOT com>
X-X-Sender: ford AT eos
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: development under 1.5.0 ?s
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0307101545040.6088-100000@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.56.0307101451470.1846@eos>
References: <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0307101545040 DOT 6088-100000 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Brian Ford wrote:
>
> > Could Corinna, or someone else knowledgeable, help me clear up some
> > issues with respect to development under 1.5.0?  If I should just
> > wait for the (forth coming?) posting to cygwin-apps, just say so.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Is it true that I should not recompile anything under 1.5.0 unless
> > all the dlls it uses have been recompiled first under same?  If not all,
> > how do I identify the subset?
>
> Anything using a datatype that has changed size from 1.3.22 to 1.5.0 in
> its export list is unsafe.  Identifying the exact DLLs will require
> looking closely at their export lists (or asking the package maintainers).
>
Yeah, that's what I thought.  I was hopping we might have figured out an
easy way to do this by now, though.  Oh, well.  I'll figure it out myself.

One reason I ask is that I am the unofficial lesstif maintainer, and I
need to figure out when it is safe to build the new lesstif libs.

> > So, 1.5.0 headers are not safe for development, except for dll package
> > maintainers recompiling for the above purpose, and for those carefully
> > checking from the bottom up?
>
> The rule of thumb is: if you're using a DLL, beware.  Either that, or
> recompile the DLL.
>
See above.

> > Is it safe to use 1.3.22 headers with a 1.5.0 dll (I think so)?  Obviously
> > the converse is not true.
>
> Your statement isn't either.  All the structure sizes/offsets would have
> changed, so you can't use older headers with the newer DLL.
>
I don't think that's really true.  If so, then all the old 1.3.22 apps
wouldn't work with 1.5.0.  Wasn't that what Corinna so carefully
engineered?

> > A comprehensive posting about the rules would be greatly beneficial to
> > those of us who develop using Cygwin.
> > --
> > Brian Ford
>
> Basically, until new experimental packages come out, it's better to either
> rebuild the DLLs yourself, or to use static libs.  Oh, and code compiled
> with 1.5.0 will most likely not run under anything older.
> 	Igor
>
I understood that.  Thanks.

-- 
Brian Ford
Senior Realtime Software Engineer
VITAL - Visual Simulation Systems
FlightSafety International
Phone: 314-551-8460
Fax:   314-551-8444

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/