On 3/18/2011 5:06 AM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > BTW, I wonder if we can begin mitigating (2) by not shipping the .la > files with GCC. This would stop those paths from being hardcoded into > other .la files, so that eventually only the libtool scripts will need > to be fixed.
Yes, please. I think this should be done, upstream (4.7?), as well. There is no need for runtime libraries to have .la files IMO -- having them needlessly complicates, and provides no benefit (is it even supported, by gcc-devs, to dlopen/ltopen a runtime library, on all platforms?) -- Chuck -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
