Rob, On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 09:42:57AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jason Tishler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I decided to table the search for the "offending" ld option(s) because > > of the following gloomy thought: > > > > Given that rebase can break certain DLLs and that it is nearly > > impossible to control how arbitrary packages create their DLLs, > > can setup.exe's proposed rebase solution deal with this problem? > > Or, is the rebase solution doomed to failure? > > Time for a 2c opinion. > > Looks like something is broken with dllwrap->ld interaction. Does > adding --shared fix this? Or perhaps the -Wl,--dll should be replaced > with --shared... > > [snip]
False alarm or the boy who cried wolf... I just built pq.dll and cygcurl-2.dll using their standard makefiles and they were rebase-able. This explains why my gcc -shared experiment "worked" last week. However, the pq.dll (and other PostgreSQL 7.1.3 DLLs) that I built over the summer with an older (i.e., previous?) version of gcc/binutils is not rebase-able. So, with the latest tools there does *not* seem to be a problem. Kevin, what version of gcc/binutils are you using? Are they the latest? Thanks, Jason -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
