Revisiting libcygwin.a/libc.a/libm.a

Chris Faylor
Tue Feb 8 11:23:00 GMT 2000

On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 11:06:23AM -0600, Mumit Khan wrote:
>Chris Faylor <> 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.

Hmm.  I thought that I checked with the CD version and it still had
problems.  Now, what did I do with that test case...


More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list