[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: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 14:39:34 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20040913)

Hi Peter!

Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> Hmm, sorry that I am so late into the fray. Indeed the -static flag
> should not require a .la file.

Agreed.  This was an arbitrary and strange choice.

> In my opinion, since libtool knows the library search paths, the
> extension used for shared objects, the extension used for static
> archives and lots of other information about libraries on every platform
> already, the -static flag should simply prefer static archives if they
> are available in the linker path. There should be no need for any lists
> of system shared objects.

Considering Bob's posts about how static linking against system libraries
gets you a binary that might stop working if you move it to another
similar version, or upgrade your system... and considering that we already
extract a list of automatically linked libraries for each compiler incase
we want to link with ld:  Why do you want to make -static the same as 

Libtool already has a history of trying to protect the user from
themself(sic), so I would be inclined to exclude system libraries for -static
as the common case, leaving -all-static for the few users that really know
they want to trade off deployability against a static only link.

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]