Christopher Faylor wrote:
> We don't programatically hexedit the static libraries. That was the
> whole point of my speclib rewrite. The libraries are generated using
> dlltool.
Sorry, I tested the new one without reading it and didn't realise to what
extent you had rewritten it.
> If that's
On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 12:31:29PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Apr 7 00:12, Dave Korn wrote:
>>>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 t
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 7 00:12, Dave Korn wrote:
>> 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.
Sorry, I was just using the term in the exte
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.
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
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 libcygwi
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 w
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 cygwi
On Apr 6 16:48, Dave Korn wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 03:21:26PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> >> ...Both exes have an IAT from kernel32 importing GetACP and Get
> >> ModuleHandleA, and two single-entry IATs referencing _impure_ptr
> >> (auto-import entries, pointing
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 03:21:26PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> So, that's why only some applications manifest this problem; it's only
>> the ones that explicitly pass -lc in their LDFLAGS.
>
> So, given how limited the problem is, I don't think the alarmist Subject
> was
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 03:21:26PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>So, that's why only some applications manifest this problem; it's only
>the ones that explicitly pass -lc in their LDFLAGS.
So, given how limited the problem is, I don't think the alarmist Subject
was really called for. Anyone reading th
Dave Korn wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> [ re: ... don't update! ]
>
> Or at least, not without taking a backup of your Cygwin installation
> first
Right, panic over. If you do need to revert, it is possible, as long as you
remember to take m4 and alternatives along for the ride. (Also any other
12 matches
Mail list logo
