Re: Building all static

[Peter O'Gorman]

Gary V. Vaughan wrote:

> 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 :-)

Hmm, sorry that I am so late into the fray. Indeed the -static flag should 
not require a .la file.

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.

Peter
--
Peter O'Gorman - http://www.pogma.com