1. Currently, we use the same naming on mingw as on windows -- foo.dll and foo.lib for shared libs and import libs, and libfoo.lib for static library. Is this OK?
No, this is definatly not correct. This is how, autotools generate libraries: Mingw Naming convention for library "foo" with ABI version 3: Static library: libfoo.a --> installed to lib Import lubrary: libfoo.dll.a --> installed to lib Dynamic library: libfoo-3.dll --> installed to bin Cygwin Naming convention Static library: libfoo.a --> installed to lib Import lubrary: libfoo.dll.a --> installed to lib Dynamic library: cygfoo-3.dll --> installed to bin Artyom
Artyom wrote:
1. Currently, we use the same naming on mingw as on windows -- foo.dll and foo.lib for shared libs and import libs, and libfoo.lib for static library. Is this OK?
No, this is definatly not correct.
This is how, autotools generate libraries:
Mingw Naming convention for library "foo" with ABI version 3:
Static library: libfoo.a --> installed to lib Import lubrary: libfoo.dll.a --> installed to lib Dynamic library: libfoo-3.dll --> installed to bin
And what is wrong, specifically, with the convention I've outlined above? Also, what is 'lib' and 'bin'? mingw compiler is perfectly useable without any 'minsys' thing, right? - Volodya
participants (2)
-
Artyom -
Vladimir Prus