This is a very valid question.
Alexandre, do we support generating regular executables
for the apps we don't necessarily need the wrapper stuff
for initialization purposes?
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: [putty]Winelib support + patch
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:17:18 +0000
From: Simon Tatham <anakin(a)pobox.com>
To: dpaun(a)rogers.com
Cc: putty(a)projects.tartarus.org
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun(a)rogers.com> wrote:
> FYI: the way it works is that instead of compiling the app as an
> executable, we generate a .so that's loaded by wine. Now,
> wine is simply a one page program that loads the libraries
> that the program expects (like kernel, gdi, user), and then
> loads the program itself. This is required by some apps which
> have C++ static initializers, which expect to be able to call
> Win32 functions, and they do so before we get a chance to
> initialize them, if we were to have the app load the libs.
OK, I've now read the docs and I understand this a bit better now.
My next awkward question is: I can see that this is necessary for
some apps which have C++ static initialisers, or which load
libraries that have C++ static initialisers, but why does that mean
it's necessary for PuTTY? PuTTY contains no C++, and as far as I
know it uses no libraries _except_ standard Win32 API ones. Surely
it should be possible _for these particular applications_ to compile
them as standalone binaries? Or does Winelib currently only support
doing things the inconvenient way?
Cheers,
Simon
--
Simon Tatham "The distinction between the enlightened and the
<anakin(a)pobox.com> terminally confused is only apparent to the latter."
-------------------------------------------------------
--
Dimi.