Re: [boost] Re: Jamfile patches for Borland

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-11 21:50:34

At 09:07 PM 3/11/2003, Edward Diener wrote:

 >While I realize it may be the only answer to the problems you mention,
 >making libraries link to the static RTL where they would normally link to
 >the dynamic RTL is IMHO a bad general solution. My reason for thinking 
this
 >is the problems which always seem to occur when modules mix static and
 >dynamic RTL routines in their linkage to other libraries. I can't prove
 >this always causes problems but I have seen where using either all
 >dynamic RTL or
 >all static RTL when creating an executable and accompanying libraries is
 >always a safe run-time solution, at least as far as reusability of the 
RTL
 >is concerned.

While I understand this argument against "making libraries link to the 
static RTL where they would normally link to the dynamic RTL", the patch 
Alisdair provided doesn't alter any object libraries. It affects regression 
tests only, or am I missing something?

We have a similar situation with some other compilers. Metrowerks only 
fully supports locales with static linking, for example.

As a workaround, I'm inclined to accept the patch if it improves the test 
results, although I'd like to hear from John Maddock or others who are 
familiar with Borland's idiosyncrasies.

--Beman