From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-02 18:45:36
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve M. Robbins" <steven.robbins_at_[hidden]>
> > > I have two new problems:
> > >
> > > 1. Static libs should NOT be built using -fPIC.
> > They should if they're being linked into a dynamic lib, shouldn't
> I don't follow. If you want to use libboost_python in another shared
> lib, then you'd link with the libboost_python.so, no?
That's kinda my point. I may be about to learn something about *nix
shared libs again, but here are some facts:
1. AFAIK libboost_python is only useful from a shared lib (python
module) -- oh, I suppose you could use it for embedding python in
another app, but I've never tried it, and libboost_python.so would work
just as well, wouldn't it?
2. It was originally implemented as a static lib just because that's
much simpler to get right across platforms. There was no
libboost_python.so. Since a static lib on Unix is just an archive of .o
files, those .os had to be shared-linkable.
3. Eventually I made libboost_python.so as a replacement, which saves
lots of space in every extension module. I kept
libboost_python_static.a, as I've said, to keep people who were attached
to using the static lib happy.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk