Re: [boost] [build] guru needed: static vs dynamic lib conundrum for serialization/filesystem library

Subject: Re: [boost] [build] guru needed: static vs dynamic lib conundrum for serialization/filesystem library
From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-04 02:59:18

On 03.08.2012 21:53, Robert Ramey wrote:
> BUT the dll created, as well as the serialization library used have been
> created with static linking.

Do you mean static runtime linking? By definition, dll cannot use static linking.

> I'm assuming that the file system library is
> also created this way.  I "think" this should be OK even though some C++
> runtime code will be repeated between the DLL and the mainline test
> components and that this might create a problem so it's probably not the
> best practice. Never the less, users do this and I want to test it.

I believe that using static runtime from DLL, is something that should never, ever, be done.
On Linux, it was possible years ago via tricky command line options, but is no longer possible.
On Windows/MSVC, this may be still possible, but unless I am entirely wrong, this is extremely
risky practice that should not be promoted.

So, unless some MSVC expert steps in and proves me wrong, I think this is not use case that need
to be supported or tested for in the first place.

- Volodya