From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16859 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2010 17:27:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 16812 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Oct 2010 17:27:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from lo.gmane.org (HELO lo.gmane.org) (80.91.229.12) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:27:48 +0000 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P8FyS-0005k8-Vw for cygwin-talk@cygwin.com; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:27:44 +0200 Received: from 80-219-87-195.dclient.hispeed.ch ([80.219.87.195]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:27:44 +0200 Received: from cygwin by 80-219-87-195.dclient.hispeed.ch with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:27:44 +0200 To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com From: Gary Subject: Re: -static not working with gcc 4.3.4 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: <83hbgif5z1.fsf@garydjones.name> References: <20101017005857.GA28900@const.famille.thibault.fr> <2BF01EB27B56CC478AD6E5A0A28931F201762C09@A1DAL1SWPES19MB.ams.acs-inc.net> <4CBC490B.9060704@lysator.liu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (cygwin) X-No-Archive: Yes X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2010-q4/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 Peter Rosin wrote: > Den 2010-10-18 14:45 skrev Nellis, Kenneth: >>> $ cat test.c >>> int main(void) {} >> >> Please, why such a large test case when the following would >> have been perfectly adequate to demonstrate the problem?: >> >> $ cat test.c >> main() {} >> $ > > Don't throw rocks in glass houses. You have (at least) 20% > absolute crap in your version. > > $ cat test.c > main(){}$ That's not complete crap then, only 20% crap. BTW, isn't main supposed to be int main(void) { return 0; } or alternatively int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { return 0; } ? -- Gary (100% pedant, who didn't read the original thread and so, as usual, may not know what he is talking about)