Ah, now I see it. You have to be careful with your typing.
pseudo_stubs.dll (with one s in the end) is the name that fails.
Apparently both pseudo_stub.dll (no s) and psuedo_stubs.dll (bad
spelling) work. And pseudo_stubss.dll (double s) definitely
works, that
I have tried myself.
Peter Ekberg wrote:
Ah, now I see it. You have to be careful with your typing.
pseudo_stubs.dll (with one s in the end) is the name that fails.
Apparently both pseudo_stub.dll (no s) and psuedo_stubs.dll (bad
spelling) work. And pseudo_stubss.dll (double s) definitely
works, that
I have tried
Hello Peter,
Ah, now I see it. You have to be careful with your typing.
pseudo_stubs.dll (with one s in the end) is the name that fails.
Apparently both pseudo_stub.dll (no s) and psuedo_stubs.dll (bad
spelling) work. And pseudo_stubss.dll (double s) definitely
works, that
I have
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:45:59PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Then it is a bug in dlltool or dllwrap and I wonder why this never was
fixed.
Surely you know why. We leave bugs in the code just to make people
suffer.
WJM,
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Hallo Christopher,
Am Mittwoch, 11. August 2004 um 17:50 schriebst du:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:45:59PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Then it is a bug in dlltool or dllwrap and I wonder why this never was
fixed.
Surely you know why. We leave bugs in the code just to make people
suffer.
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 09:15:49PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Hallo Christopher,
Am Mittwoch, 11. August 2004 um 17:50 schriebst du:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:45:59PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Then it is a bug in dlltool or dllwrap and I wonder why this never was
fixed.
Surely you know
Christopher Faylor schrieb:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 09:15:49PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Hallo Christopher,
Am Mittwoch, 11. August 2004 um 17:50 schriebst du:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:45:59PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
Then it is a bug in dlltool or dllwrap and I wonder why this never
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:42:00PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
maybe I'll find some time to take it over...
You'd hardly be mean if you actually took over maintainership.
It's far meaner to send a me too about problems you've noticed without
actually doing anything whatsoever.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0200, Peter Ekberg wrote:
I have read several messages stating that dlopen does not work for
dlls
that depend on cygwin1.dll.
(e.g. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2004-06/msg01056.html).
I have also understood that this is due to
take the underscore out of the dll name
psuedo_stub - psuedostub
reid
-Original Message-
From: Peter Ekberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 3:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls
Christopher Faylor wrote
-RESULTS
pseudostubs.dll dlopen: Win32 error 126
foo.dll ok
psuedostubs.dll ok
reid
-Original Message-
From: Reid Thompson
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 3:49 PM
To: Peter Ekberg; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls
take the underscore
, August 10, 2004 3:57 PM
To: Reid Thompson; Peter Ekberg; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls
actually -- that's not it, as this code, gives the following results:
CODE---CODE
#include stdio.h
#include dlfcn.h
char *dlls
]
Subject: RE: Dynamic loading of cygwin dependent dlls
Reid Thompson wrote:
take the underscore out of the dll name
psuedo_stub - psuedostub
Yes, that works. It also works if I add an s making it
pseudo_stubss, so the underscore is not it.
Or is it? Are underscores really
Reid Thompson wrote:
well -- i just redid the entire thing, with the correct spelling and
your original post works
$ ./load
pseudo_stub.dll ok
foo.dll ok
That's strange, did my original post first get you error 998 for
pseudo_stubs.dll and now, after some juggling, the same thing is ok?
I wrote:
Reid Thompson wrote:
well -- i just redid the entire thing, with the correct spelling and
your original post works
$ ./load
pseudo_stub.dll ok
foo.dll ok
That's strange, did my original post first get you error 998 for
pseudo_stubs.dll and now, after some juggling, the
Hallo Peter,
Am Dienstag, 10. August 2004 um 22:58 schriebst du:
I wrote:
Reid Thompson wrote:
well -- i just redid the entire thing, with the correct spelling and
your original post works
$ ./load
pseudo_stub.dll ok
foo.dll ok
That's strange, did my original post first get you
Hello!
I have read several messages stating that dlopen does not work for dlls
that depend on cygwin1.dll.
(e.g. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2004-06/msg01056.html).
I have also understood that this is due to some structures not being
initialized in that case.
Is this dlopen problem
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 09:09:40AM +0200, Peter Ekberg wrote:
I have read several messages stating that dlopen does not work for dlls
that depend on cygwin1.dll.
(e.g. http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2004-06/msg01056.html).
I have also understood that this is due to some structures not being
18 matches
Mail list logo
