This is a very valid question. Alexandre, do we support generating regular executables for the apps we don't necessarily need the wrapper stuff for initialization purposes?
---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Re: [putty]Winelib support + patch Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:17:18 +0000 From: Simon Tatham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FYI: the way it works is that instead of compiling the app as an > executable, we generate a .so that's loaded by wine. Now, > wine is simply a one page program that loads the libraries > that the program expects (like kernel, gdi, user), and then > loads the program itself. This is required by some apps which > have C++ static initializers, which expect to be able to call > Win32 functions, and they do so before we get a chance to > initialize them, if we were to have the app load the libs. OK, I've now read the docs and I understand this a bit better now. My next awkward question is: I can see that this is necessary for some apps which have C++ static initialisers, or which load libraries that have C++ static initialisers, but why does that mean it's necessary for PuTTY? PuTTY contains no C++, and as far as I know it uses no libraries _except_ standard Win32 API ones. Surely it should be possible _for these particular applications_ to compile them as standalone binaries? Or does Winelib currently only support doing things the inconvenient way? Cheers, Simon -- Simon Tatham "The distinction between the enlightened and the <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> terminally confused is only apparent to the latter." ------------------------------------------------------- -- Dimi.
