Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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
Message-ID: <42D6FE30.16FE9D94@dessent.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:07:12 -0700
From: Brian Dessent <brian AT dessent DOT net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Missing symbols for linker called from gcc
References: <26AF4E73922EDB44BE50FD3AAD868ADA112C50 AT naeajaxsez07 DOT nadsusea DOT nads DOT navy DOT mil>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Report: -5.9/5.0 ---- Start SpamAssassin results  	* -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts 	* -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% 	*      [score: 0.0000] 	*  0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list 	---- End SpamAssassin results
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

"Michel, Gustave A CIV N62306" wrote:
> 
> I've recently updated the cygwin (from 1.3.4-3) my standalone Win2K box, and gcc is failing because of missing symbols.  Here is a session:

If you had a Cygwin that ancient chances are you also had a prehistoric
binutils without the pseudo-reloc support.  This is why we ask for
people to provide "cygcheck -svr" output, because without it we are just
guessing at what versions of things you are trying to use.  So, since
you didn't provide enough information I would say as a wild guess to
make sure that you have the current version of both gcc and binutils.

Brian

--
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/