Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
list-help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
list-post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-ID: <3922A3FB.110A53C1@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:51:55 -0400
From: "Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com
CC: Michael Ring <m DOT ring AT ndh DOT net>, cygwin-apps AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: Shared vs Static [WAS: Re: [general] some ideas & request for  
 comments (LONG)]
References: <20000517121917 DOT 18561 DOT qmail AT web106 DOT yahoomail DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Earnie Boyd wrote:
> 
> --- Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> wrote:
> -8<-
> >
> > NOTE: Are you suggesting, Earnie, that binutils be further hacked to
> > search for the following in the '-Bdynamic' case:
> >
> > 'libfoo.dll' 'libfoo.dll.a' (and 'foo.dll' and 'foo.dll.a' for
> > consistency), and THEN as an absolutely last fallback, 'libfoo.a'

Amend: (1) foo.dll.a
       (2) libfoo.dll.a
       (3) foo.dll
       (4) libfoo.dll
       (5) libfoo.a
> >
> > In '-Bstatic', you'd only look for 'libfoo.a' of course.
> >
> 
> No, but it's not a bad idea.  

What disturbs me about it, is that we'd be deciding, for ALL i386pe
platforms, that dll import libraries MUST be named *.dll.a or *-import.a
(which won't work on djgpp because of the one-extension-only/8.3 problem
-- but is that an issue? Does djgpp support dll's?)

Standardization is good, but are we the people to decide that, for all
other i386pe platforms?

> Also, the path for the search for the .dll files
> could be modified to search in more logical places such as /bin, /usr/bin,
> /usr/local/bin and the windows system directory so that the symlinks wouldn't
> be needed.

Ugh. This would just confuse everybody. And I doubt the binutils or gcc
guys would ever accept a patch of this nature.

--Chuck