--enable-runtime-pseudo-reloc support in cygwin, take 3.

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 08:44:38PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 07:38:23PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>Charles Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>I've tested Egor's patch and it seems to work just fine, as demonstrated 
>>>by the two test cases he posted last week, AND as demonstrated by the 
>>>test case posted to the binutils list some months ago (it tested 
>>>pseudo-reloc behavior in the child after a fork).
>>>
>>>I've also tested Egor's runtime reloc support with Ralf's binutils "use 
>>>the DLL as the import lib" and it ALSO works fine in all three cases.
>>>
>>>I'm going to continue using ld.exe-ralf and 
>>>cygwin1.dll-egor/libcygwin.a-egor for my day-to-day use, just to see if 
>>>something wacky crops up...
>>[snip]
>>>On balance, I agree that #1 is the best option.  Unless I run afoul of 
>>>some unforseen wackiness in the next few days, recommend inclusion as is 
>>>(in the most recent iteration, e.g. no cygwin.sc changes)
>>
>>So far, no problems.  I'm gonna go on record in favor of this patch, in 
>>its 4th incarnation 
>>(http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2002-q4/msg00222.html).
>>
>>given that winsup/cygwin/lib/getopt.c(*) still retains its BSD licensing 
>>and comments, there's no reason to change the (non-)license/public 
>>domain attribution in egor's pseudo-relocs.c file.  Egor's patch #4 
>>should be able to be committed as-is.
>
>You know, I don't recall asking for legal opinions.  There is absolutely
>no reason why I should trust the legal analysis of anyone who is not a
>lawyer.
>
>If public domain of Berkeley licensing was a huge win, then I really
                  or
>wouldn't be asking anyone to fill out cygwin assignments, would I?

cgf