From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 100552 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2017 11:15:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 100533 invoked by uid 89); 22 Nov 2017 11:14:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KB_WAM_FROM_NAME_SINGLEWORD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=antivirus X-HELO: codesynthesis.com Received: from codesynthesis.com (HELO codesynthesis.com) (142.44.161.217) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:14:58 +0000 Received: from brak.codesynthesis.com (unknown [66.251.163.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by codesynthesis.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9ADE5EE4B; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:14:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by brak.codesynthesis.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BAD801A80328; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:14:47 +0200 (SAST) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:25:00 -0000 From: Boris Kolpackov To: JonY <10walls@gmail.com> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PING] Plugin support on Windows/MinGW Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg02013.txt.bz2 JonY <10walls@gmail.com> writes: > Is there a problem with using .so for internal libraries instead of > "dll"... I think not but I haven't tested it. The problem with using .so instead of .dll is that producing this non-standard extension may not be easy or possible depending on the build system/tool (e.g., libtool). Also, you never know how other pieces of the system (like antivirus) will react to a file that looks like a DLL but is called something else. > ... if it simplifies the code? I don't think it simplifies that much and the potential (and unknown) downside is significant. Thanks for the review, Boris