On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Dave Korn wrote: > On 23/03/2011 19:17, Charles Wilson wrote: >> On 3/23/2011 1:49 PM, Dave Korn wrote: > >>> Hmm, I should probably do this. And send it upstream too. >> >> Well, yeah (but does upstream want to explicitly require cygwin-1.7.8 or >> better? or would you conditionalize it on a configure test: > > The latter, certainly. > > I had a quick try in my 4.3.4-4 build dir; it's a simple matter of adding an > extra.def file to the linker flags along with a counterbalancing > '--export-all-symbols' (and since we have a .map file as well this doesn't > over-export, so I don't need to make a complete .def file, handy!) and I could > conditionalize it on any one of the new HAVE_xxx definitions that are what's > causing libgfortan to exclude its own implementations in the new build, so it > doesn't seem like it should be too hard. > > I need to concentrate on fixing LTO for binutils 2.21.1 before I do anything > else. Apologies to Marco but unless the problem gets worse I'm going back to > that and testing the gcc-4.6.0 RC2 for the next few days. I'll try and find > some background time in which to respin 4.3.4 with forwarders added to the > DLL.
the new pc is faster than old one. 2-3 days I should repack all > > cheers, > DaveK > Marco -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
