This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: libcygwin.a as a symbolic link to lib{c,m}.a -- need insight
- To: Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com>
- Subject: Re: libcygwin.a as a symbolic link to lib{c,m}.a -- need insight
- From: Mumit Khan <khan@xraylith.wisc.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 01:55:50 -0500
- cc: cygwin-developers@sourceware.cygnus.com
Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> writes:
> >
> >pro:
> > - using ld (as opposed to gcc) will work as expected. Lots of configure
> > script will run `ld ... -lc' etc. I consider it bad practice in
> > general, but it's out there. This currently doesn't work either.
>
> This is a pretty big pro. If a configure script can find the right stuff
> in a libc.a then this is a big win.
Agreed.
> >con:
> > - non-cygwin apps can't look inside libc.a or libm.a. This may or may
> > not be an issue, but something to think about.
>
> I don't think we should worry about this. I'm talking about providing
> a Cygwin distribution. I don't care if something else breaks.
Agreed.
> >For a few 100k extra disk space, we could just hard link it (which will
> >eventually not copy when Cygwin supports native hard linking).
>
> Cygwin does support hard linking on NT. On 95/98, I think we'd find
> that libc.a would get out of sync with libcygwin.a.
I should've mentioned w9x. I don't know anything about w2k.
I vote for linking both libc.a and libm.a to libcygwin.a. In the future,
we should probably use -lc in gcc config files as well, but that's not
something we need to think about right now.
Regards,
Mumit