[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Building all static
From: |
Bob Friesenhahn |
Subject: |
Re: Building all static |
Date: |
Tue, 2 Nov 2004 09:52:15 -0600 (CST) |
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
This seems like a particularly bad idea to me. What is the value of
changing existing documented libtool behavior?
Consistency, and user expectation. Looking through the archives I see the
repeated question of why -static still links shared libraries for libtool,
There is also value to consistent operation of libtool flags across
released versions.
not usually desirable to build a completely static program. Completely
static programs don't necessarily work properly when copied to a
somewhat different processor type with the same OS, or a different
kernel version.
Hmmm... interesting. So is this still the case if I build my program
without libtool, using cc/ld -static (which is basically what -all-static
currently does)?
Yes. Naturally, operation is highly OS/CPU dependent. Modern systems
like Solaris provide exceedingly few true static programs. Under
Solaris, ldd reveals that most programs pick up an extra shared
library which provides some architecture-specific implementation.
I guess my argument boils down to this:
Unless most of our users who think they want -all-static actually want
(libtool's existing) -static, and as long as the use of the -static option
in libtool calls in released packages to mean what it currently does is
both deliberate and (at least a little) widespread: it makes more sense
for libtool to do what one would expect when passed the -static flag.
Are these assumptions good?
i) people who specify -static to libtool don't want to link against
any dynamic libraries, and are suprised that isn't actually the case.
ii) the -static option is not used to mean `link static libtool libraries,
and dynamic otherwise' in many shipping packages.
iii) The user expects existing libtool options to continue working as
they have been documented for years.
In my opinion, the argument must be very strong in order to change an
existing libtool option which has been documented for a long time and
is likely in use.
Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen
Re: Building all static, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/02
Re: Building all static, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/11/02
Re: Building all static,
Bob Friesenhahn <=
Re: Building all static, Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/11/02
Re: Building all static, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/11/02
Re: Building all static, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/02
Re: Building all static, Bruce Korb, 2004/11/02
Re: Building all static, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/11/02
Re: Building all static, Peter O'Gorman, 2004/11/03
Re: Building all static, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/11/03
Re: Building all static, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/03
Re: Building all static, Peter O'Gorman, 2004/11/03
Re: Building all static, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/11/03