Sheri wrote: > See this (possibly relevant) message and the two followups (re g++, > windows, pcrecpp, not null, - but no mention of arguments). > > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2006-12/msg00405.html
So you're talking about this? http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24196 I don't think this is what's happening but I'm not sure because I don't know how pcrecpp's interface works really. So what you mean when you talk about using g++ instead of ld is builing a single dll containing Bruce's wrapper as well as Google's? Anyway, I'd rather not bother testing your theory and work around the problem as we were planning to do. Most likely, we're simply not using pcrecpp the right way.
