Re: MiNT libs

[Yves Pelletier <ypell@cam.org>]

On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Martin-Eric Racine wrote:

> I know this has been brought up previously, but....
> Which convention is currently in use?  
> 
>    lib<name>.a    or    <name>.olb
>    
> Since which GCC port was this changed?

The MiNTlib distribution still follows the old gnu.olb style.
That should probably be changed, but if your gcc doesn't like
it, it's easy to make symlinks to another naming system.

> 
> I found several libs were broken, after my recent HD crash, but when
> trying to re-install everything, I found that PL48 is only an update
> for older stuff; previously released stuff is not included.

I'm not sure I understand this...

> 
> libc.a and libsocket16.a (among others) were corrupt, but I haven't
> been able to track which package they came from....

AFAICF libc.a probably came from the mintlib; most people rename
or symlink gnu.olb -> libc.a

libsocket comes from the portlib package, I think.

> Using equivalent GNU libs as a backup is not always desirable either.
> Compiling the very simple odometer.c produced an executable of 21k 
> using libc.a, while gnu.olb delivered a whopping 34k binary !!!

I'm not sure where that libc.a you are referring to came from.
Is there a recent port of the GNU lib for the atari?  The
difference in executable size can only be accounted for if we
know exactly which source package the libs came from.

Yves
__ 
It is easier to train an educated person than to educate a
trained person.  --Unknown