Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 09:10:00 -0500 From: Jason Tishler To: Cygwin Subject: Will libm.a always be a symlink? (or snapshot vs. release) Message-ID: <20010327091000.B797@dothill.com> Mail-Followup-To: Cygwin Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Organization: Dot Hill Systems Corp. While testing Rob Collins pthread support with the 2001-03-25 snapshot, I noticed that libm.a and libc.a were *not* symlinks to libcygwin.a as has been the case up till 1.1.8-2. Is this an inherent difference between snapshots and releases? Or, will 1.3.0 and later be this way too? The reason why I'm bring this up is that when -lm is supplied during linking and libm.a is *not* a symlink to libcygwin.a, then one will get link errors such as the following: gcc -shared -Wl,--enable-auto-image-base \ -Wl,--out-implib=libpython2.1.dll.a -o libpython2.1.dll \ Modules/getbuildinfo.o ... -lm /usr/lib/libcygwin.a(ds00023.o)(.text+0x0): multiple definition of `__infinity' /usr/lib/libm.a(s_infconst.o)(.text+0x0): first defined here IIRC, Cygwin binutils had been fixed to tolerate (i.e., ignore) superfluous -lc and -lm options. If so, then it seems that this only works when libm.a and libc.a are symlinks. Thanks, Jason -- Jason Tishler Director, Software Engineering Phone: +1 (732) 264-8770 x235 Dot Hill Systems Corp. Fax: +1 (732) 264-8798 82 Bethany Road, Suite 7 Email: Jason.Tishler@dothill.com Hazlet, NJ 07730 USA WWW: http://www.dothill.com -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple