Re: 1.5.0 - showstopper?

["Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>]

Charles Wilson wrote:
> Corinna said:
>> I'm curious, does that still make sense now?  Should libcygwin.a be added
>> to that list or is the problem ultimativly fixed by adding the
appropriate
>> symbols to libcygwin.a?  Somehow I'm missing the conclusion in this
>> discussion.
>
> cgf's fix to newsym and rmsym solved this problem. I still believe that
> libcygwin.a should be in ld's exclude list, but it's not actually
> NECESSARY to do that, given cgf's fix.
>
> Max said:
>> There is at least one other problem that I think would be avoided if
>> libcygwin was in the excludes: currently, if you build a dll which uses
>> getopt, getopt will be reexported from the dll. Now try to link to the
dll -
>> the linker complains because getopt is available in both the dll and
>> libcygwin.a.
>
> Yes, but in that case you're simply pushing the problem farther down the
> food chain.  What if we did this, and you try to build libfoo and libbar
> (which both export getopt or some other identical symbol).  Then, you
> link baz.exe against both libfoo and libbar....boom!

Was I? Oops. I had imagined that the exclude would prevent the initial
export in the first place. Guess I need to understand ld better before
opening my mouth! :-)

Max.