Using winebuild explicitly
juenglin at cse.ogi.edu
Mon Jan 5 14:49:25 CST 2004
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).
> Unfortunately, by doing that we don't learn anything useful
> for Wine :) There is absolutely no reason why duplicating the
> steps that winegcc takes in your Makefile should make any
> Speaking of this wrapper script, we should have a flag in winegcc
> that disables it. But again, having it should make no difference
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 winegcc would indeed
> whatsoever. Can you (pretty) please go back to the winegcc stuff,
> and run the linking step with the -v option, and send me the
Did so. wineg++ invokes winewrap (without passing on the
"-v" flag, though) which in turn generates same files and
compiles them. The error eventually occurs in linking the
gcc -shared -Wl,-Bsymbolic,-z,defs -lwine -o phaeaco.exe.so
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lwine
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
Error: gcc failed.
> > The Makefile is as follows:
> > LIBS = -lwine -lm
> You see, you link against -lwine as well, why would this fail
> through winegcc? I'm guessing there's something funny in your
> ld setup...
The directory in which libwine.so.1 lives, is contained in my
/etc/ld.so.conf. Are you saying this should be enough for gcc
to find the library file?
In the other Makefile (the one where I invoke winebuild
explicitly), the path is passed (as an -L option) to
winebuild and g++ (c.f. variable LDFLAGS).
Ralf Juengling <juenglin at cse.ogi.edu>
More information about the wine-devel