From: GamerX_@usa.net (Dylan Griffiths) Subject: Re: Cygwinb19.dll 25 Jun 1998 01:20:58 -0700 Message-ID: <000801bd9fb8$a978b160$8155a58e.cygnus.gnu-win32@hssktn129.sk.sympatico.ca> Reply-To: GamerX_@usa.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: , "Gnu Win32 Mailing list" -----Original Message----- From: Robert.Cross@scottish-newcastle.co.uk To: gnu-win32@cygnus.com Date: Wednesday 24, June, 1998 14:52 Subject: Re: Cygwinb19.dll >'Proper' (no insult intended to the genii behind gnu-win32) Unix systems have >the >capability to produce "statically" or "dynamically" linked executables. From >what I understand >of M$'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@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".