Re: CFA: pseudo-reloc v2

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 11:07:33PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>On 5/5/2010 3:13 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> That's basically it and I have it more-or-less coded but I haven't
>> finished thinking about DLLs.  Maybe that's more complication than is
>> warranted.  I have to do more research there.  We could, and I think
>> should, put most of the code in pseudo_reloc.c in cygwin1.dll, though,
>> rather than duplicate it in every source file.
>
>I disagree with this statement.
>
>I spent a lot of effort trying to synchronize our version of
>pseudo_reloc.c with the mingw and mingw64 versions -- specifically so
>that we could leverage Kai's v2 efforts.
>
>If we -- meaning cygwin -- move most of the guts into the cygwin DLL,
>then ... we either
>  (1) fork our version from the mingw[32|64] version permanently, and
>lose the possibility of "easy" code sharing between the three projects, or
>  (2) this portion of the code lives in both places (pseudo_reloc.c and
>some-other-cygwin-dll-source-file), but is #ifdef'ed in pseudo_reloc.c
>when compiled on cygwin, because there's this other identical copy over
>in some-other-cygwin-dll-source-file.

I kept the ifdef __CYGWIN__ stuff.  Moving the code into the DLL
actually simplifies the Cygwin part quite a bit since you can use things
like "winsup.h" and "small_printf".  And, my changes don't permute
things as much as Dave's.  Dave's changes were not really MinGW
friendly.

>Yuck.  (I don't mind "losing" the effort I put in, because whatever
>happens we now have v2 support.  But...why make it harder if somebody
>in mingw-land invents v3?  Or make it harder on them, if WE do?)

And, why not make it so that potentially all that is required for v3
support is a DLL upgrade rather than a rebuild?

cgf