-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Dave Korn wrote:
> :) If so, I will submit upstream. Actually I think I can probably do it
> all with the hooks and overrides, but I haven't got up-to-date with the
> prep_gnu_info changes yet ...
In that case, you know where to find me. :-)
> That's all I get from a default build, I'm not sure if --disable-libjava is
> the upstream default right now but knowing the somewhat sorry state of libjava
> on cygwin I wouldn't be surprised. (I'll give it a go and if anything manages
> to compile, I'll ship it.)
Perhaps when you have the next release with a standard cygport,
> Because I didn't use libtool to do it. I think Aaron's patch to build
> libgcc shared from upstream does it properly, so I'll be adopting it if I can,
> otherwise I'll just crudely bodge it in.
Since the name of the libgcc dll is manually specified in
gcc/config/i386/{cygwin.h,t-cygwin}, isn't it just a matter of changing
those to cyggcc_s-1.dll? Or am I missing something?
> Didn't look at fortran and objc.
Presuming that F95 and ObjC/ObjC++ don't have the problem with overrides
that C++ has, it should be as simple as adding the -no-undefined flag.
> The problem with making shared libstdc - it can be done - is that it shows
> regressions, because win32 doesn't currently fully support the semantics of
> weak symbols like ELF does. Specifically, since a DLL has to be
> fully-resolved when it is linked, any references to e.g. operators new/delete
> get statically resolved as internal calls within the DLL, and then when you
> attempt to define a custom operator new/delete override within your
> executable, it doesn't get interposed between the already-resolved calls and
> their destinations within the DLL.
>
> This would make the C++ compiler non-compliant, so as it all works OK with a
> static library, I'm shipping it that way for now.
>
> I plan to work on improving weak symbol support in binutils to resolve this
> problem in the long run; I think we can make it work with a little bit of
> thunk stubbery[*].
I think I get the picture; helping to figure that out is beyond me.
> ? dunno. That's a whole nother story, isn't it?
I suppose so. Definitely not urgent, just curious.
Yaakov
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEAREIAAYFAkjKH4EACgkQpiWmPGlmQSMuugCeOFPWFs0INxU540XaPYFgnFt0
gEQAoPckVVyAYmNM+rCP30qzfrmUOvOt
=xgq0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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/
