[PATCH] libtool patch for direct-linking-to-dll

[Charles Wilson]

Ralf Habacker wrote:
>>On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 08:13:16AM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>I didn't realize it was a patch to rip out all of the import-lib
>>>building stuff, and replace it with the new link-to-dll support.
>>
>>I've been blissfully trying to avoid libtool discussions but I have to
>>ask my standard question of "what about hybrid libraries which contain
>>import symbols and actual linkable objects, like the cygwin DLL".

What Ralf said.  You can't *build* that sort of thing with libtool 
anyway.  But you can include them as dependencies to something ELSE that 
you're building; that's no problem.

We don't use libtool to build libcygwin.a, do we?

>>I assume that this has been discussed but it's hard for me to believe
>>that any discussion would end with "We won't worry about them, then".
>>That seems to be counter to what libtool is all about.

It did come up -- in a 'can we still link TO these beasties' context 
(which we can).  It never came up in a 'can we build these beasties' 
context -- probably because it was self-evident that that sort of thing 
is inherently non-portable, and is thus outside of the general set of 
'things you do with libtool'

agree with Ralf:

> 1. As far as I know there is no way to build hybrid libraries with libtool; only
> shared or static libs are allowed, so generating hybrid libraries will not be
> possible with libtool.
> 
> 2. Linking to non-libtool generated hybrid libraries will be no problem, because
> for libtool they will be recognized as standard import libraries.
> Linking to non libtool created dlls with a symbolic link as import lib
> replacement (the new scheme) will be recognized as dll, which will be no problem
> too.

-Chuck




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/