--- Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 07:41:58PM +1100, Danny Smith wrote: > > Hello, I'm after some criticism, before submitting this to binutils. > > > > IMO, the auto-export feature of ld needs (at least) an option to > exclude > > whole libs from export. The following patch does that. It also adds a > few > > more default lib excludes and scans for backward compat implib symbols > > (__imp_) > > > > I think this patch doesn't do enough. > > > > My preference would be to exclude *all* libs by default, with a command > > line option to explicity *include* named libs. Why? It is too easy for > > licensed library code to sneak into dll's using --export-all. This > affects > > distributability (sic) of the dll and apps dependent on the dll. > > The user may be unaware of this infection because its automatic. > > At least make the user think about what she/he is exporting. > > > > I will gladly throw away the following to work on a patch to exclude > all > > libs by default if given encouragement. > > > > Any comments. > > Yes, a question. First note that I'm a binutils (l)user, not a > developer so I apologize for being thick. Now the question: > > Isn't the functionality you're searching for already in ld given by > the --no-whole-archive options? > > gcc -shared -o cygfoo.dll $(OBJ) > -Wl,--out-implib,libfoo.dll.a > -Wl,--no-whole-archive -lbar -lbaz > > Or am I missing the point? > > Corinna >
That does'nt do it. For example, if my dll uses lbasename from libiberty.a, --export-all,--no-whole-archive will still export the libiberty symbols _sch_istable _sch_tolower _sch_toupper lbasename The --exclude-libs option would exclude those symbols from the exports. Danny http://shopping.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Shopping - Get organised for Christmas early this year!