On Feb 20 15:06, Dave Korn wrote: > Dave Korn wrote: > Ah. Right. Ouch. I see what's going on. Rebasing does not interact well > with the presence of unresolved weaks. Gah. > [...] > I'll need to do some thinking about this, as it might be possible to make it > work, but in any case, the rule should be that DLLs are *always* linked > against shared-libgcc, regardless; even plain old C with no exceptions. It's > OK if you're linking an entire app statically to link against static libgcc, > but it's definitely bad practice when building a DLL. I should probably warn > against this usage in the compiler, if not fail it altogether; not sure yet, > because it does basically work, even if the DLL it produces isn't rebaseable, > and because it might not be difficult to make rebase skip relocating > unresolved weaks, and because I have this long-term scheme to make weaks work > properly on win32 like they do on ELF which would avoid the problem > altogether. > > > > Take-home point: never use -static-libgcc when building a DLL.
Baeh. The two of us discussed this in PM a couple of days back and I still don't like the idea to depend on cyggcc_s.dll for more or less every other package providing a DLL. If that's becoming the default, we need at least to put the gcc-runtime package into Base, IMHO. Yes, I know you can simply add the dependency to setup.hint, but still. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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/
