On Apr 7 00:12, Dave Korn wrote: > 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.
I assume they use nm rather than grep. But maybe we should give up on such broken configure scripts? 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/
