Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: Excude whole libs when building w32 dlls with -export-all MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 03:35:33 +1000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Robert Collins" To: "Charles Wilson" Cc: "Danny Smith" , "binutils" , "cygwin-apps" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g3RHZce20469 > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu] > Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 2:26 AM > To: Robert Collins > Cc: Danny Smith; binutils; cygwin-apps > Subject: Re: Excude whole libs when building w32 dlls with -export-all > > > Robert Collins wrote: > > > > Can we detect libs and automatically exclude symbols from shared > > libraries? > > > > i.e. when linking against libcygwin.a, ALL symbols therein > are from a > > dll, so -by default- should not be exported. > > > Picky point: that's not true in this case. libcygwin.a, unlike most > import libs, contains actual code as well as import thunks > for cygwin1.dll. Yeah well :}. Actually most import libs can be considered to contain code - that's what the standard stub is. The important point is not to *ignore* the library, but to not *re-export* it's symbols. > I dunno if we need something *less* granular (e.g. never never never > export ANY symbol of ANY kind that comes from *.dll) ... > maybe so. But, > this is a separate argument from Danny's proposed patch. True. However the current code in ld is a kludge. Always has-been, and if not fixed... always will-be. I too like the patch Danny has put forward, (not that I didn't speak against it :]). I'm hoping to review Ralf's patch tomorrow & will try and get to Danny's as well. I'm going to test on a non-HEAD ld, and if that works correctly, then IMO it can go into HEAD... as long as that part hasn't altered significantly between my testpoint and HEAD. Rob