Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: >...
That's not a good strategy, we'll have to be in line with the gcc people, and breaking compatibility like so is no good. Let's float the question on their mailing list before we settle on something.
OK, do you want to do it or shall I?
Well, it's just the difference in the programs/ Makefile between
In any case, we need to have our own extensions - eg to stop winewrap creating a wrapper script.
I don't think this is a good idea. This is an implementation detail that I'd rather not export -- we hope to get rid of this wrapper sooner or later. Why do you want to disable it?
$(MODULE).so: $(ALL_OBJS) $(RC_SRCS:.rc=.res) Makefile.in $(WINEWRAPPER) $(RM) $(BASEMODULE) $(WINEGCC) -m$(APPTYPE) $(ALLCFLAGS) $(ALL_OBJS) \ $(RC_SRCS:.rc=.res) -o $(MODULE) -L$(DLLDIR) -L$(LIBDIR) $(EXTRALIBS) \ $(LIBPORT) -Wl $(LDFLAGS) \ $(DELAYIMPORTS:%=-Wl,-delay-load,%) $(IMPORTS:%=-l%) $(RM) $(BASEMODULE) && $(LN_S) $(WINEWRAPPER) $(BASEMODULE)
and
$(MODULE).so: $(ALL_OBJS) $(RC_SRCS:.rc=.res) Makefile.in $(WINEWRAPPER) $(WINEGCC) -m$(APPTYPE) $(ALLCFLAGS) $(ALL_OBJS) \ $(RC_SRCS:.rc=.res) -o $(MODULE) -L$(DLLDIR) -L$(LIBDIR) $(EXTRALIBS) \ $(LIBPORT) -Wl,-no-script $(LDFLAGS) \ $(DELAYIMPORTS:%=-Wl,-delay-load,%) $(IMPORTS:%=-l%) $(RM) $(BASEMODULE) && $(LN_S) $(WINEWRAPPER) $(BASEMODULE)
I think the second is cleaner - but it's not really a big deal, and as you say it will disappear, but probably not in time for 0.9