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 13:04:11 -0500 From: Jason Tishler To: Cygwin Subject: Re: Will libm.a always be a symlink? (or snapshot vs. release) Message-ID: <20010327130411.D797@dothill.com> Mail-Followup-To: Cygwin References: <20010327091000.B797@dothill.com> <20010327120731.A9780@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010327120731.A9780@redhat.com>; from cgf@redhat.com on Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 12:07:31PM -0500 Organization: Dot Hill Systems Corp. Chris, On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 12:07:31PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 09:10:00AM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote: > >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. > > Since libm.a, libc.a, and libcygwin.a are all different files, DJ's > changes don't apply here. The safest thing to do is to reimplement the > symbolic links yourself. Thanks for the above -- this is exactly the information that I desired. 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