Re: [boost] shared-linkable-true, runtime-link-dynamic and runtime-link-static

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-15 16:17:03

Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:

> [2002-10-15] Alkis Evlogimenos wrote:
> 
> >Hi,
> >
> >>From a previous post (library build confusion) there was a brief mention
> of 
> >what a runtime-link-dynamic library is:
> >
> >This static library is built for linking to a dynamic runtime library.
> >
> >Can someone elaborate on the uses of the 2 different static library types? 
> >More specifically which of the 2 static ones should I use to create 
> >executables? runtime-link-dynamic or runtime-link-static, or it doesn't 
> >matter? Why does a static library need to be different if is build for 
> >linking to a dynamic library?
> 
> <runtime-link> refers to the type of Standard C++ Runtime library to use.
> Most platforms support using both a library that is statically linked, all
> the code is bundled with your application/dll/so. And using a library that
> is dynamically linked, i.e. it's a shared object (DLL, or SO, etc).
> 
> Which type depends somewhat on your deployment preference, and more on the
> specific platform you are using and what type of code you are writting. Most
> of the time you want to use the dynamic runtime as it makes C++ exceptions
> and memory allocs/deallocs work when using other C++ dynamic libraries. But
> if you have an entirely self contained program you could use the static
> runtime to reduce deployment dependencies.

I don't think we're answering his question here. Are the components of
statically-linked libraries which link to a static runtime built any
differently from those which link to a dynamic runtime? Are they
linked (Windows) or archived (Unix) any differently? I think the
answer on Unix is no in both cases. I'm not sure about Windows.

-- 
           David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com