Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: "Dave Korn" To: Subject: RE: Program exited with code 0303000 Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:42:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <41585CEE.7060707@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Sep 2004 18:42:17.0407 (UTC) FILETIME=[B6B364F0:01C4A4C1] > -----Original Message----- > From: Bobby McNulty > Sent: 27 September 2004 19:33 > To: Dave Korn > David, his problem is Oracle. > odbc.dll. > He needs the old one. By "he needs the old one", do you mean "he needs to use the static link library instead of the DLL he made from it using libtool and impdef"? And can you explain why creating a dll from a static link library might go wrong in this case, or in what other way his methodology was wrong? Your theory (if I've guessed correctly what it is you're actually trying to claim from your insufficiently detailed answer) is plausible, but we haven't had enough information from Dan to be able to diagnose it that well yet. > Simple > That's where his problem is > Look at the cygcheck.txt in the original post. It doesn't even include the letters 'odbc' at any point. Nor does it point out any clashes between executables or dlls. So I'm really curious to know exactly _what_ in his cygcheck output was supposed to have given me this information. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- 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/