[boost] Re: Auto_link and BOOST_DYN_LINK

From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-08 09:33:05

"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:036d01c41d67$396f77e0$888d0252_at_fuji...
>
> > Now I know that auto-link specifies it is an #error if one tries to
create
> a
> > dynamic link library, using BOOST_DYN_LINK, when one is using the static
> > version of the RTL. I am wondering why this is any less of a problem
than
> if
> > one attempts to create a static library using the DLL version of the
RTL.
> > Despite the fact that I don't like either mixture, I would welcome an
> > explanation of why one is allowable, and safe, and the other is not. But
> > given that the latter is considered allowable and the former not, I
would
> > suggest, along with my beginning suggestion, that BOOST_DYN_LINK be
> removed
> > and that BOOST_STATIC_LINK be added to coerce the creation of a static
> > library when linking to the DLL version of the RTL.
>
> That's the way the regex used to work, I changed that for regex because
> folks were complaining that they wanted static linking as the default
> (smaller code size, no redistributables etc), the auto-link code then
> followed regexes lead...

The static linking you describe, with no redistributables, means that one
links with the static version of the RTL, else one must redistribute the
dynamic RTL. I have no problem with that as the default when the dynamic RTL
is turned off, as it makes sense to create all static libraries in that
case. But if the dynamic RTL is turned on, this usually means to me that one
is producing a dynamic link library of one's own, not a static library. OK,
I know you know the argument. I just hope others are not as surprised as me
when their efforts to link with the dynamic RTL produces a static Boost
library unless BOOST_DYN_LINK is defined.