[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Building all static

From: Gary V. Vaughan
Subject: Re: Building all static
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 16:29:43 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20040913)

Hey Bruce!

Bruce Korb wrote:
> ``-static'' needs to imply the common and ordnary meaning of ``static''.
> "libtool" is a less common and ordinary command than either "gcc" or "ld".
> It is not a directly obvious thing that you would need to add the qualifier
> "all-" to it in order to actually get static linking.
> Being obvious is far more important

Not forgetting the excellent advantage that ./configure LDFLAGS=-static would
behave as expected.  In fact, if configure didn't run a test that noticed the
difference between `ld/cc -static' and `libtool --mode=link ld/cc -static',
then it could be made to behave even better than expected by cleverly omitting
the system libraries from the list of statically linked objects :-)

> than compatibility for the few users who: 
> 1.  use -static
> 2.  don't want fully static
> 3.  would have a hard time coping with the change
> :-)  Cheers - Bruce

What he said :-)  As long as they are `few'.  I happen to think that they
really are.

And for the very few who really really want fully static, they can still use
-all-static to stop libtool trying to outsmart them.

Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,}
Research Scientist   ( '/
GNU Hacker           / )=
Technical Author   `(_~)_

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]