From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-05 11:01:50
David Abrahams wrote:
> I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.
> I'm saying this: in v1, people would often do:
> lib foo : foo.cpp : <runtime-link>shared ;
> Expecting it to build a shared library. I think you are now saying
> that in v2:
> lib foo : foo.cpp : <link>shared ;
> Does in fact build a shared library.
Yes, only <shared>true is used for now.
> If that's the case, should we not
> have a separate feature for specifying how a target should link to
> its dependencies?
I don't think so. If dependency is built with <shared>true, you link to
it dynamically. In general, you cannot change your mind after dll is created,
and link it statically.
I view the current "shared" as saying: "use shared linking whenever possible".
Of course, if you want to use shared linking for exe, you'd have to use
shared linking for dependencies that are libraries. So, <shared> is
propagated. If you introduce another feature, then I cannot say
<shared>true on a single exe and have all dependency libs built as shared too.
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk