This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: ordinal linking for cygwin ld
- From: "Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- To: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>
- Cc: "Ralf Habacker" <Ralf dot Habacker at freenet dot de>,"Kde-Cygwin" <kde-cygwin at kde dot org>,"Binutils" <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>,"Cygwin-Apps" <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 09:08:41 +1000
- Subject: RE: ordinal linking for cygwin ld
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 9:04 AM
> To: Robert Collins
> Cc: Ralf Habacker; Kde-Cygwin; Binutils; Cygwin-Apps
> Subject: Re: ordinal linking for cygwin ld
> Robert Collins wrote:
> > The PE spec (as I read it) indicates that as long as a name is
> > included (ie it's not link-only-by-ordinal) then ordinals
> can change
> > and nothing will break.
> > It's only when the only link information is the ordinal
> that problems
> > will appear.
> That's what I thought, too, until I got bit. Check the
> ml archives during spring/summer 2000. At the time, the
> symptoms seemed
> like a smoking gun: link by ordinal == link ONLY by ordinal. OTOH,
> binutils on cygwin was royally broken at the time, DJ was
> away from cygwin, Mumit had been gone for half a year or
> more, and bit
> rot was setting in.
Yup. I was part of that conversation too :}.
> Perhaps the problems that burned me then were due to broken
> binutils/maintainerless cygwin-gcc, and it wasn't the smoking gun I
> thought it was.
IIRC it was never conclusively identified.
> OTOH, if you've linked by ordinal, and then you strip symbols
> -- are the
> names of the imports still retained?
Rob (cygwin sortof-binutils