Hi!
Wednesday, 03 July, 2002 Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CW> The new version looks good to me; I built and ran your test without
CW> problems. I do have a suggestion for later, when
CW> --enable-runtime-pseudo-reloc is made the default: in pe-dll.c (around
CW> line 2209) change
CW> if (pe_dll_extra_pe_debug)
CW> printf ("creating runtime pseudo-reloc entry for %s (addend=%d)\n",
CW> fixup_name, addend);
CW> to
CW> if (link_info.pei386_runtime_pseudo_reloc == -1)
CW> info_msg (_("creating runtime pseudo-reloc entry for %s (addend=%d)\n"),
CW> fixup_name, addend);
CW> So that if pseudo_reloc is implicitly enabled, print messages for each
CW> psuedo-reloc entry (but not all that other pe_dll_extra_pe_debug stuff).
CW> It's not a warning, but its info the user probably needs to know if he
CW> didn't explicitly say "--enable-runtime-pseudo-reloc".
Agreed.
CW> The business with fork() and -DNO_RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_SUPPORT stuff in
CW> your example is a bit confusing -- do you have some pending
CW> patches to cygwin1.dll?
Yes, i've sent them yesterday to cygwin-patches@. Of course, they
should be added after new binutils package (in which ld exports
___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST__ and ___RUNTIME_PSEUDO_RELOC_LIST_END__)
is released.
Or we can only export them in pe.sc for now, and go ahead with cygwin
(and mingw, if anybody's interested) change. It'd just have no effect
until full ld patch is applied.
Egor. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19
