From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-11 12:00:26
"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Oh, but that brings up another issue. The default of static linking
>> doesn't make sense for Boost.Python: if you link your extension module
>> statically it will be bigger than necessary and you'll give up an
>> important feature of the library, which allows multiple extension
>> modules to interoperate with the same wrapped C++ types.
> Absolutely, there is no one policy that fits all.
> The rationale for the current behaviour was this: originally regex (from
> which all this stuff originates) used dynamic linking by default when the
> runtime was dynamic. It's safer that way should you be using regex from a
> dll for example. However, it brought a persistent stream of user
> complaints: mainly about deployment, all asking if static linking could be
> the default. After I changed the complaints stopped, and I've never had one
> about static linking by default being the wrong choice.
OK, that speaks volumes, thanks.
Still, the document really ought to be more explicit about how static
linking is the default rather than making the reader deduce it from
the rationale section.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk