From:	GamerX_ AT usa DOT net (Dylan Griffiths)
Subject:	Re: Cygwinb19.dll
25 Jun 1998 01:20:58 -0700 :
Message-ID:	<000801bd9fb8$a978b160$8155a58e.cygnus.gnu-win32@hssktn129.sk.sympatico.ca>
Reply-To:	GamerX_ AT usa DOT net
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	<Robert DOT Cross AT scottish-newcastle DOT co DOT uk>,
	"Gnu Win32 Mailing list" <gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert DOT Cross AT scottish-newcastle DOT co DOT uk
<Robert DOT Cross AT scottish-newcastle DOT co DOT uk>
To: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com <gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Wednesday 24, June, 1998 14:52
Subject: Re: Cygwinb19.dll


>'Proper' (no insult intended to the genii behind gnu-win32) Unix systems
have
>the
>capability to produce "statically" or "dynamically" linked executables.
From
>what I understand
>of M$'s terminology, DLL's (*dynamic* link libraries), are required for
>dynamically linked
>EXEs. So surely the answer is to get gcc/ld to produce statically linked
>EXE's?  I would
>assume that it **must** be able to do this, since it seems to be able to do
>everything
>else 'part from make the tea/coffee.
>
>Go on someone, tell me I'm haverin' (Scots for "talking garbage") - or not?


That sounds like the perfect way of making non-DLL requiring EXEs w/
Cygnus..  But, would statically linked EXEs be worth the extra size?  That's
my main concern, especially since if a person is running more than 1 Cygnus
compiled application at a time, you are saving on memory space and harddrive
space to go with dynamic linking.


-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".

- Raw text -