> > Hi > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > You are not... convenient library should not be linked to programs! > > Is in libtool documentation. > > https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Static-libraries.html > "The key is remembering that a convenience library contains PIC > objects, and can be linked where a list of PIC objects makes sense; > i.e. into a shared library. A static convenience library contains > non-PIC objects, so can be linked into an old static library, or a > program. " > Yes, I was referring to this. > Having -static or not doesn't change the result. All objects are > compiled with -fPIC. And ar of PIC objects + ld/elf is fine linking a > program or a library that way. Searching a bit over the web, it seems > to be a common practice for quite a while. Do we care so much about > other non-elf compilers/linkers that could in theory have issues? Even > win32 dll are fine with this (I created a small project to test this > attached). Do you know an arch/compiler that wouldn't support this? > > What are the alternatives? To compile the library twice and pass all > the needed library flags when linking? I don't think we need to do all > that for something hypotetical we can't test. > Why using a static library is so bad? Here would be perfect and working on all possible (and impossible) platforms. Frediano _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel