Dave Korn wrote:
send me the
libelf0-0.8.13-1-compile.log offlist and I'll see how it compares to one of
mine. Also if you could dump a list of the imports from your version of the
dll, I'd like to see which symbols its pulling in.
Nevermind; I figured it out. I have a local patch in my
On 30/12/2009 11:38, Dave Korn wrote:
Nevermind; I figured it out. I have a local patch in my binutils (which I'm
about to send upstream) that accounts for the difference. I'll upload libelf
without libgcc1 in the requires: line, since the DLL that I build won't have
the import. (DLLs
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On 30/12/2009 11:38, Dave Korn wrote:
Nevermind; I figured it out. I have a local patch in my binutils (which
I'm about to send upstream) that accounts for the difference. I'll
upload libelf without libgcc1 in the requires: line, since the DLL that I
build won't
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On 23/12/2009 21:52, Dave Korn wrote:
When I build those packages from source, there is no dependency on
libgcc:
Did you actually get such a dependency when you built it, or was
this just a
thinko?
Yes, when I rebuilt your package from source, there is a
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Woops, just spotted a discrepancy:
In libelf0/setup.hint, libgcc1 is missing from requires:.
When I build those packages from source, there is no dependency on libgcc:
ad...@ubik /tmp/libelf/release/libelf0-0.8.13-1
$ cygcheck inst/usr/bin/cygelf-0.dll
On 23/12/2009 21:52, Dave Korn wrote:
When I build those packages from source, there is no dependency on libgcc:
Did you actually get such a dependency when you built it, or was this just a
thinko?
Yes, when I rebuilt your package from source, there is a libgcc1
dependency, and
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
For your own convenience, I would strongly suggest
MAKEOPTS should not be used to
Same goes for SIG
Thanks, I don't know much about the detailed usage of quite a few of the
cygport variables. (There isn't any other significant documentation beyond
the contents
On 20/12/2009 15:07, Dave Korn wrote:
Thanks, I don't know much about the detailed usage of quite a few of the
cygport variables. (There isn't any other significant documentation beyond
the contents of /usr/share/doc/cygport/, is there?)
There is actually some work on API documentation in
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Actually, you need to add an explicit --enable-compat, otherwise
whenever you need to roll the next version/release, it will see gelf.h
and libelf.h present (from this release) and default to DO_COMPAT=no
to avoid overwriting them (for fear they are libc headers).
On 20/12/2009 20:02, Dave Korn wrote:
Because GCC needs everything else in libelf, in particular the functions,
not just the #defines, so I wanted it all to come from one nice consistent
source.
Right, but if Cygwin's headers are missing something then they should be
fixed. Was there
Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
On 20/12/2009 20:02, Dave Korn wrote:
Because GCC needs everything else in libelf, in particular the functions,
not just the #defines, so I wanted it all to come from one nice
consistent source.
Right, but if Cygwin's headers are missing something then they should
11 matches
Mail list logo
