Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:52:42 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: FW: libtool devel package still  dll crippled.
Message-ID: <20020421175242.GA1121@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <005e01c1e774$2dab05d0$651c440a AT BRAMSCHE> <005901c1e958$207ecfa0$651c440a AT BRAMSCHE>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <005901c1e958$207ecfa0$651c440a@BRAMSCHE>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

Forwarding to the correct mailing list.

cgf

On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 07:15:25PM +0200, Ralf Habacker wrote:
>>>ld checks the symbols in the shared libs during compile time to see if
>>>it can resolve all symbols and appearantly also detects duplicated
>>>symbols.  On Linux it is not necassery impossible to have two libs that
>>>define the same symbols.  E.g.  this feature can be used to override
>>>the malloc implementation of libc.  Of course when this happens
>>>inadvertently it can lead to unexpected behaviour/crashes.  ELF (The
>>>linking format used on Linux) has rather complex rules for determining
>>>which symbol should be used if it is defined multiple times.  It also
>>>distinguishes between weak and strong symbols.  It might be that it is
>>>only possible to override weak-symbols and that multiple strong-symbols
>>>result in link-errors.
>>
>>Does the cygwin ld has some similar rules ?
>>
>Is nobody on this list, who can give an answer to this question ?