This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: rebase addon - Bas and Size listing of dll's without rebasing
- From: "Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- To: "Jason Tishler" <jason at tishler dot net>
- Cc: "Ralf Habacker" <Ralf dot Habacker at freenet dot de>,"Cygwin" <cygwin at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:27:12 +1100
- Subject: Re: rebase addon - Bas and Size listing of dll's without rebasing
- References: <000c01c18e49$22279220$526307d5@BRAMSCHE> <20011227180503.GD2204@dothill.com> <045401c18f33$844d7f60$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> <20020103132835.GB1940@dothill.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Tishler" <email@example.com>
> > IMO we should be using bfd not the MS helper libraries - in the long
> > term. Otherwise one cannot do any of this as part of a cross compile
> > cross-manipulation toolkit.
> Good point.
> I'm willing to do the right thing, but that is going to take longer
> the ramp up necessary for me learn about binutils' configury/make,
> etc. However, I would like to get a rebase solution into setup.exe
> Is a two prong approach acceptable? In the short term, add rebase to
> winsup/utils, integrate directly into setup.exe, etc. In the long
> add rebase to binutils, integrate with ld, etc.
Yes. In fact it's probably a requirement, as setup.exe cannot get too
Does the MS solution need .dll's not present on win95a ?
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html