Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com From: Chris Faylor Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 12:40:33 -0400 To: cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Subject: Re: -lc and -lm Message-ID: <20000908124033.A13006@cygnus.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com References: <20000908160935 DOT 8085 DOT qmail AT web116 DOT yahoomail DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.6i In-Reply-To: <20000908160935.8085.qmail@web116.yahoomail.com>; from earnie_boyd@yahoo.com on Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 09:09:34AM -0700 On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 09:09:34AM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote: >Ah, that would be problematic. So the solution: > >1) modify ld? > >2) modify the package configuration so that autoreconf will not add -lc or -lm >for the cygwin target? > >3) live with it and deal with it on an individual bases? > >Item 1 is the ideal; but, may be impractical. Item 2 is doable but would take >years to get all of the package configurations modified. Item 3 is what we >have now and IMO is not an acceptable solution. I would gladly comment on these solutions if I actually understood what problems they were trying to address. cgf