Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: binutils 20021107-2 From: Robert Collins To: Charles Wilson Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com In-Reply-To: <3DCD5AE1.4000708@ece.gatech.edu> References: <20021109105904 DOT 24937 DOT qmail AT web21405 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> <1036844910 DOT 31190 DOT 0 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <3DCD4623 DOT 8070800 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3DCD4691 DOT 1070601 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20021109181030 DOT GB16969 AT redhat DOT com> <3DCD520A DOT 6090504 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3DCD5420 DOT 5000406 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20021109183512 DOT GA17700 AT redhat DOT com> <3DCD5AE1 DOT 4000708 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-kQb01juDz5S/p4TTAGKB" Date: 10 Nov 2002 10:45:48 +1100 Message-Id: <1036885550.31961.18.camel@lifelesswks> Mime-Version: 1.0 --=-kQb01juDz5S/p4TTAGKB Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 05:58, Charles Wilson wrote: > Christopher Faylor wrote: >=20 >=20 > > Shouldn't there be a few more entries in this list, like libmingwex, > > libmingwthrd, libmsvcrt (maybe). I don't know if any of those librarie= s > > have globals that could be erroneously exported but doesn't it pay to > > be safe? >=20 >=20 > libmingwex -- maybe. I dunno -- that's for Danny and/or Earnie to say.=20 > You really only need library-name based protection for static libs;=20 > symbols in import libs are protected from re-export by symbol-exclude=20 > lists (_nm_*,__imp__*, etc). libmsvcrt, libmingwthrd -- no (because=20 > they are implibs). A light just went on. We could use a "exclude system archive" flag - dont' export symbols originating from libraries in /usr/local/lib/* or /usr/lib/* ( and possibly the gcc lib dir as well - although I think that is a spec thing, as it's gcc's decision to have the library given a certain name). Whaddya think? Rob --=20 --- GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt. --- --=-kQb01juDz5S/p4TTAGKB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA9zZ4sI5+kQ8LJcoIRAqLsAJ4xacqeSpdsjjhAhZpioRsNtMqF9wCfdoGW wGPuZm4VfkGGo9XSKmMwG7c= =cQu5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-kQb01juDz5S/p4TTAGKB--