On Jul 29 14:34, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote: > > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2025, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote: > > > > > On Jul 28 12:57, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin wrote: > > > > On Mon, 28 Jul 2025, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote: > > > > > Unless there's some automatism referencing the __wrap_X functions even > > > > > if the --wrap option isn't present, I don't see this incompatibility > > > > > as > > > > > much of a problem. We're trying to maintain backward compat, but that > > > > > doesn't mean an executable created under and for a newer Cygwin DLL > > > > > has to run under an older DLL. > > > > > > > > OK, then the patch adds support for wrapping these functions ends up in > > > > a > > > > stable Cygwin release, then GCC is updated to add additional --wrap > > > > parameters for them, and that GCC and binaries it produces will no > > > > longer > > > > be compatible with older Cygwin DLLs. > > > > > > *iff* the --wrap option is used with functions not provided by older > > > DLLs, right? Not for some reason generally incompatible, I hope... > > > > Correct. However, I expect that to be very common for C++ binaries, > > because it seems like the C++14 sized delete is now used by default for > > ordinary (non-array) delete. > > Oh, and you know what else uses these symbols... libstdc++-6.dll. > And the larger cygwin_cxx_malloc struct will mean that binaries that try > to fill it out will need a newer DLL version with the larger struct > (libstdc++-6.dll being notable there as it provides the implementations > generally).
Yeah, so we can only do this after we updated Cygwin. Maybe we only want that with 3.7, it sounds like a major version kind of breakage. Corinna -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
