Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From:	Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date:	Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:36:55 -0500
To:	Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT EDU>
Cc:	cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject:	Revisiting libcygwin.a/libc.a/libm.a
Message-ID:	<20000208113655.A4801@cygnus.com>
Mail-Followup-To:	Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT EDU>,
	cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mutt 1.0i

Would it be a good idea to eliminate the separate lib[cm].a for the next
net release?  I've already got a modified Makefile for newlib and cygwin
which links libcygwin.a to libc.a and libm.a.

The last I checked, I think that there were inexplicable problems
with constructors when you linked libcygwin.a to libc.a.

Mumit, do you remember this?  Do you have any further insight into the
problem?  Do you still think that it's a good idea?

cgf

- Raw text -