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 -all-static?
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.
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. gary@{lilith.warpmail.net,gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
