> I'm using a special patched ld (based on the
> recent official
> > ld) which rejects exporting of all imported
> libs with a one
> > line patch
> >
> > binutils/ld/pe-dll.c:234
> > /* Do not specify library suffix explicitly, to
> allow for
> > dllized versions. *
> > static autofilter_entry_ty
Ralf Habacker wrote:
>>must be some way to prevent ld outputting the imported
>>
> symbols as
>
>>well as the exported symbols...
>>
>
> I'm using a special patched ld (based on the recent official
> ld) which rejects exporting of all imported libs with a one
> line patch
>
> binutils/ld/pe-d
> > _LT_AC_TAGVAR(always_export_symbols, $1)=yes
> >
> > Using "yes" causes libtool to use nm to
> generate a symbol
> > list, which is avoided by setting to "no".
>
> Are the symbol tables identical in both cases?
If have done a short try (nm of the two import libs and
diff) with a little help
Hallo,
I have GNU Enscript ready as a package here, setup.hint:
sdesc: "Converts ASCII files to PostScript"
ldesc: "GNU enscript is a drop-in replacement for the enscript
program. Enscript converts ASCII files to PostScript and stores
generated output to a file or sends it directly to the pri
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralf Habacker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 6:15 PM
> I had recgonized problems with the
> allow_undefined_flag=unsupported and have tried only with
> "no", which works. Yet I have tried with "yes" it works too.
> So its no pr
> > From: Robert Collins
> > Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 9:43 AM
>
> > > Again, the "...=" came from you, Rob. So, what's the
> > > difference between
> > > "...=" and "...=no" or "...=unsupported" (or
> "...=yes", for that
> > > matter). And which do we want/need?
> >
> > We want "...=". In bo
