Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 08:08:33PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Apr 6 13:33, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 06:29:43PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> Wouldn't it help if libc.a, libm.a etc. wouldn't export any symbols at
>>>> all? I mean, eventually there's libcygwin.a linked in which satisfies
>>>> all of the requested symbols. What would break if the secondary libs
>>>> pointing to cygwin1.dll would be stubs?
>>> We rehashed all of this years ago. IIRC, some configuration scripts
>>> actually look for symbols explicitly in the libraries.
>> Hmm, too bad. So it was a naive thought.
>
> I think I had the same thought while resisting the whole concept of
> speclib.
>
> Maybe I should have resisted harder.
I think there's a strong argument that those configuation scripts are doing
a very wrong thing in that they're trying to second-guess internal
implementation details of the operating environment. If you remember, was
there a good reason why they couldn't answer the same questions solely using
link tests? Grepping through library symbols seems quite fragile when so many
standard C library functions are permitted to be implemented as macros.
cheers,
DaveK
--
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/
