Re: Revisiting libcygwin.a/libc.a/libm.a

[Mumit Khan <khan at NanoTech dot Wisc dot EDU>]

Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> writes:
> Would it be a good idea to eliminate the separate lib[cm].a for the next
> net release?  I've already got a modified Makefile for newlib and cygwin
> which links libcygwin.a to libc.a and libm.a.
> 
> The last I checked, I think that there were inexplicable problems
> with constructors when you linked libcygwin.a to libc.a.
> 
> Mumit, do you remember this?  Do you have any further insight into the
> problem?  Do you still think that it's a good idea?

Remember it way too well. I did do some tests since and it seemed to work
with v1.0 CD version. I will check again this evening.

I for one consider this to be the right thing, even with the various
problems/misfeatures others have pointed out in the past (eg., if it's 
symlink, it's not usable by native tools, but I believe the advantage
outweighs the problem here).

One problem we have now is that most build tools add -lm if math library
is needed, and we end up using statically linked versions of the math
routines.

More this evening.

Regards,
Mumit