Tue Feb 8 09:06:00 GMT 2000
Chris Faylor <email@example.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
More this evening.
More information about the Cygwin-developers