> > A foo.lib can be used interchangeably with a libfoo.a file. Except Yea I did not realize that was just a convention (I was also confused on cygwin : .so vs .dll)
> > for the well-documented and frequently repeated problems with C++ > > name mangling, and the even more repeated problems with mixing > > the cygwin and msvcrt runtime libraries, there should be no problems > > with using a .lib file on the gcc command line or a .a file on the > > "cl" command line. > == > You cannot intermix non-trivial C++ (and, in many cases, even C) object > files between compilers. > == > > I'm not saying that it can't be done in some specialized circumstances, ... if it is not impossible, let's do it :) > for some short period of time. But before long, you *will* get bitten > by an incompatiblity. The Standard says nothing about object file formats, > internal structures, name-mangling, stack usage, and so on. And that But I suppose other compiler firms had access to MSVC standards didn't they ? > nearly guarantees disaster. Yea I experienced in a short sample those differents C++ name mangling ( http://rzr.online.fr/q/nm ) But can usage of dynamic libs workaround that ? http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/dll.html#dll-build works only for C names i guess ? But for C++ names, I doubt GCC can write a compatible MSVC "library stub" ( XYZ.lib that goes along XYZ.dll, not a static one : libXYZ.lib ) Maybe runtime linking with a dll is possible ... I am investigating on this... -- Current Obsession : http://rzr.online.fr/q/GCC -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
