[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: configure option naming convention

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: configure option naming convention
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 17:11:34 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

Hi Lars,

* Lars J. Aas wrote on Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 12:07:46PM CEST:
> : * Lars J. Aas wrote on Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 04:48:36PM CEST:
> : > 
> : > I'm wondering if there is a convention already for this or not.
> : > I am linking static libraries on windows (msvc++).  Not involving
> : > libtool or anything ready-made from autoconf/automake for that matter.
> : > Anyways, I can either just ball together just the object files for
> : > the library, or I can link the archive and pull in external
> : > dependencies at the same time.  Doing the latter, I don't need to
> : > do it when I link the static library into the executable.

> I've attached a small demo archive.  It's set up for Microsoft Visual
> Studio .NET 2003, but I believe just changing the libpath path should
> be enough to use it with Visual Studio 6.0.  However, it looks like
> I might have been confused about what happens when one static library
> includes another static library on the link line.  For some reason
> I thought it only pulled in the code that was used from the target
> library, but now I believe the whole library is just added to the
> static library so it's essentially both static libraries as one.

So it's a bit like libtool's (static) convenience archives work (note
that I haven't yet had a chance to verify this).  If you also then
choose not to install lib1, it's even more like them.

> Anyways, I will still need to do the above - bundle additional static
> libraries into the static library I am building, and I'll need to find
> an option name for it...

OK, I'll give it a try:

Given above holds, and coming from the libtool nomenclature, I'd suggest
or shorter

If OTOH you would want to emphasize rather the fact that you enrich lib2
(for example because you also have a lib3 which should not subsume lib1),
then that would not fit the libtool (static) convenience archive model.

Hmm.  `fat archive' is already taken by darwin, `fat lib' sounds like you
manipulate a certain file system,
would be overloading the most-overloaded word `static' even more, but is
actually used with similar semantics by a piece of (not GNU) software,
and `contain' or `container' has different meaning in some programming
languages.  How about

Maybe you don't want to mention lib1 at all, because it's irrelevant.
Then something like
could fit better, but I really don't know whether this has a second
meaning I've failed to grasp.

It actually feels weird to suggest namings for things to the person
credited with multiple Autotools-related namings, more so as a
non-native.  ;-)


reply via email to

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