On January 5, 2004 05:40 pm, Ralf Juengling wrote:
> Maybe, this assumption is simply wrong and gcc doesn't look up
> dynamic libraries that way (at least its man page doesn't say so).
> The reason that only I have this problem and noone else might be
> due to my wine setup: I configured with "--pr
On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 13:04, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> > There is at least one difference in using a wrapper & dll vs.
> > using a single executable: The function GetModuleFileName
> > doesn't yield the path to the program (the wrapper) with the
> > wrapper-approach (there was some discussion on th
On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 01:03, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> > This should not be necessary with the code in question and
> > I would rather like to build just one executable. So I wrote
> > a Makefile that does this (not using winegcc & co) by
> > calling winebuild explicitly (see below).
>
> Unfortun
> There is at least one difference in using a wrapper & dll vs.
> using a single executable: The function GetModuleFileName
> doesn't yield the path to the program (the wrapper) with the
> wrapper-approach (there was some discussion on this in another
> recent thread). Thus, having such flag in win
On January 2, 2004 07:16 pm, Ralf Juengling wrote:
> I tried this today, (adding /local/lib to /etc/ld.so.conf)
> but it didn't make a difference.
> I then looked into winegcc.c and winewrap.c to find out
> what winwgcc is actually doing. It is creating a shared
> library (dll) and a little wrapper
Hi Dimi,
On Wed, 2003-12-31 at 16:47, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> On December 31, 2003 07:42 pm, Ralf Juengling wrote:
> > okay, now it's as before:
>
> As I said, I think there's something wrong with your
> ld setup. You need to have /usr/local/lib (where
> the libwine library is) in your /etc/ld.
