Boost logo

Boost :

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-12 17:31:29


Beman Dawes wrote:
> 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?

My error. I looked at the comment and misinterpreted it rather than
understanding that the patch was about testing rather than generating
libraries.


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk