Yesterday I faced the same problem on NT 4.0, Cygwin 1.3.5, gcc 2.95.3-5 after not having used gcc since cygwin1.dll v1.3.3.
I updated my installation using the regular setup and got a new version of gcc (-5) as well as cygwin1.dll. (Apart from some other packages that I can't identify anymore.) Afterwards linking with gcc (gcc -o test.exe test.c) wouldn't work. Simply compiling without linking (gcc parametre "-c") worked. I checked the system for cygwin1.dll and found in /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-cygwin/2.95.3-5 a 1.3.3 version (API-version: 0.46, Build: 2001-09-12 23:54). The correct v1.3.5 was found in /bin respectively /usr/bin. After removing the outdated cygwin1.dll linking again works like a charm. Hope this helps... -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Paul G. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 28. November 2001 23:56 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: RE: gcc not creating .exe Platform? On 28 Nov 2001 at 10:38, Polley Christopher W wrote: > This statement isn't entirely true. I just did an experiment reinstalling > only bash, then ash; deleting before each time my /usr/local/bin, > /usr/local/etc, and /usr/local/lib directories. > > Although no packages explicitly contain the /usr/local directory (according > to http://cygwin.com/packages/), on these reinstalls, the /usr/local/bin, > /usr/local/etc, and /usr/local/lib directories are created (empty) > (suprisingly, even if /usr/local is marked read-only) > > So while there isn't anything installed under /usr/local, the mere existence > of a /usr/local tree doesn't, apparently, indicate an installation problem > (unless I'm doing something wrong... ) > > BTW, I use ftp://mirrors.rcn.net/ always, usually download to local (due to > daytime bandwidth restrictions through the corp. proxy), then install from > local (which I can do any old time) and have had no problems with it > (although I don't use a dialup) > > Warm Regards, > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul G. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > ... > > On 26 Nov 2001 at 18:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So, if you truly have a /usr/local directory, it comes from something > > > > that you have either downloaded or built from outside of the standard > > > > cygwin distribution. > > > > > > > > -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
