On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 01:03, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > > This should not be necessary with the code in question and > > I would rather like to build just one executable. So I wrote > > a Makefile that does this (not using winegcc & co) by > > calling winebuild explicitly (see below). > > Unfortunately, by doing that we don't learn anything useful > for Wine :) There is absolutely no reason why duplicating the > steps that winegcc takes in your Makefile should make any > difference. > > Speaking of this wrapper script, we should have a flag in winegcc > that disables it. But again, having it should make no difference
There is at least one difference in using a wrapper & dll vs. using a single executable: The function GetModuleFileName doesn't yield the path to the program (the wrapper) with the wrapper-approach (there was some discussion on this in another recent thread). Thus, having such flag in winegcc would indeed be nice... > whatsoever. Can you (pretty) please go back to the winegcc stuff, > and run the linking step with the -v option, and send me the > output? Did so. wineg++ invokes winewrap (without passing on the "-v" flag, though) which in turn generates same files and compiles them. The error eventually occurs in linking the wrapper executable: gcc -shared -Wl,-Bsymbolic,-z,defs -lwine -o phaeaco.exe.so /tmp/wwrpLuPoqb.spec.o /tmp/wwrpLuPoqb.o /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lwine collect2: ld returned 1 exit status Error: gcc failed. > > The Makefile is as follows: > > LIBS = -lwine -lm > > You see, you link against -lwine as well, why would this fail > through winegcc? I'm guessing there's something funny in your > ld setup... The directory in which libwine.so.1 lives, is contained in my /etc/ld.so.conf. Are you saying this should be enough for gcc to find the library file? In the other Makefile (the one where I invoke winebuild explicitly), the path is passed (as an -L option) to winebuild and g++ (c.f. variable LDFLAGS). Ralf -- Ralf Juengling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
