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: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:31:17 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Cc: jashoemaker@pinksheets.com Subject: Re: bug in binutils-20010425-2 tarball Message-ID: <20010604103117.C9250@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com, jashoemaker@pinksheets.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: ; from jashoemaker@pinksheets.com on Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 08:10:48AM -0400 On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 08:10:48AM -0400, John A. Shoemaker wrote: >The binutils-20010425-2 tarball contains the wrong version of ld. When you >try to compile with gcc, it throws an error regarding the dll-search-prefix >switch. I downloaded the binutils-20010425-1 tarball and it didn't have this >problem. So, your theory is that the "ld" package, released more than a month ago, and used by everyone who uses gcc is broken and you are the first person to notice? Or are you supplying some special options to gcc/ld which lead you to be convinced of this? cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple