This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Shared vs Static [WAS: Re: [general] some ideas & request for comments (LONG)]
- To: "cygwin-apps at sourceware dot cygnus dot com" <cygwin-apps at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: Shared vs Static [WAS: Re: [general] some ideas & request for comments (LONG)]
- From: "Michael Ring" <Michael dot Ring at t-mobil dot de>
- Date: 17 May 2000 14:45:09 +0000
- Autoforwarded: FALSE
- Discarded-X400-MTS-Extensions: (43) (12) (2) (135) (115) (5) (6) (3)
- Original-Encoded-Information-Types: (1) (0) (10021) (7) (1) (0) (6), (1) (0) (10021) (7) (1) (0) (1)
- X400-Content-Identifier: D834ILT3L9IC
- X400-Content-Type: P2-1988 (22)
- X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=DTM/ADMD=DBP/C=DE/;816EC82911D42C1200AA71AC]
- X400-Originator: Michael.Ring@t-mobil.de
- X400-Received: by mta MB400-SMTP in /PRMD=DTM/ADMD=DBP/C=DE/;Relayed ; 17 May 2000 14:45:43 +0000
- X400-Received: by mta MB400-DXCW04 in /PRMD=DTM/ADMD=DBP/C=DE/;Relayed ; 17 May 2000 14:45:09 +0000
- X400-Recipients: cygwin-apps@sourceware.cygnus.com
>> 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
I agree to that; Nothing is worse than to find out that you have linked to that
5 years old library that happens to sleep arround somewhere on your machine.
This gets even worse if you think about the fact that there always could be a
completely different dll in the windows dir that happens to have the same name
as a library I want to link to. My NT-Machine, for example has it's own version
of sendmail.dll in winnt\system32.
Perhaps we should be more strict:
Instead of allowing
foo.dll.a libfoo.dll.a foo.dll libfoo.dll libfoo.a
we could restrict this to:
libfoo.dll.a libfoo.dll libfoo.a
I checked my machine, there are no NT-Dll's starting with lib-prefix; besides
that things are even more transparent because then using -lfoo has nearly the
same effect as under unix, libs names foo.dll will be ignored.
Till then,
Michael