Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:13:54 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: atoi() missing on Win98, perl extension breaks
Message-ID: <20050111151354.GA12330@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <41E2E111 DOT 5040701 AT iopan DOT gda DOT pl> <41E2E529 DOT 1020603 AT familiehaase DOT de> <41E2EBF1 DOT 8050108 AT iopan DOT gda DOT pl> <41E2ED4F DOT 6030901 AT familiehaase DOT de> <41E37543 DOT 1000102 AT iopan DOT gda DOT pl> <41E38760 DOT 9090808 AT familiehaase DOT de> <20050111110318 DOT GO23702 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050111110318.GO23702@cygbert.vinschen.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 12:03:19PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Jan 11 08:59, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
>>Jacek Piskozub wrote:
>>>Gerritt wrote,
>>>>$self->{LIBS} = [q{ -L/lib/w32api -lnetapi32 -lwininet -lversion -lmpr
>>>>-lodbc32 -lodbccp32 -lwinmm -lstdc++ -lole32 -loleaut32 -luuid
>>>>-lcomctl32 -lgdi32 -lcomdlg32 -lntdll }];
>>>
>>>>Now the question is which of these libs can be removed and which needs
>>>>to stay?
>>>
>>>I believe the real underlying cause is that /lib/w32api/libntdll.a
>>>contains a atoi function header (I see that in
>>>http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/w32api/lib/ntdll.def?cvsroot=src
>>>together with a zillion other WinNT/2K/XP functions).  This is wrong
>>>because Win9x have only a very limited set of functions in ntdll.dll.
>>
>>Yes, I thought it is a w32api bug at first too.  Who is the maintainer
>>of w32api?
>
>The MingW team.  However, the symbols in ntdll.def are there already
>for a long time and they are apparently ok even though it rolls up my
>toe nails.  Also, the fact that 9x has only a limited set of functions
>in this DLL doesn't mean that the NT symbols shouldn't be present.
>
>Explicit linking against ntdll is the problem here.  I guess the "right
>thing" would be to link against -lcygwin first.

Or not explicitly linking against ntdll.  It will obviously be called in
if it is needed.

cgf

--
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/