Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com From: Chris Faylor Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 10:22:23 -0400 To: Earnie Boyd Cc: cygwin developers Subject: Re: libcygwin.a as a symbolic link to lib{c,m}.a -- need insight Message-ID: <19990823102223.C13563@cygnus.com> Mail-Followup-To: Earnie Boyd , cygwin developers References: <19990823122111 DOT 13323 DOT rocketmail AT web107 DOT yahoomail DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.6i In-Reply-To: <19990823122111.13323.rocketmail@web107.yahoomail.com>; from Earnie Boyd on Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 05:21:10AM -0700 On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 05:21:10AM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote: >--- Mumit Khan wrote: >> I vote for linking both libc.a and libm.a to libcygwin.a. In the future, >> we should probably use -lc in gcc config files as well, but that's not >> something we need to think about right now. > >Hmm. In the past if libcygwin.a was listed multiple times in the library link >list it caused problems. Is this still true? If it is then isn't symlinking >the libraries going to cause the same kind of problems? I foresee more >problems with symlinks than with dummy place holder files. I've never heard of a problem where linking libcygwin.a (or any library file) multiple times caused problems. If this did cause problems I'd think that Mumit would have raised this issue. -chris