From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-05 02:02:30
> Ok, lets put it this way: the dynamic libraries are default and more
> common use case, correct? So they have to be built efficiently. At
> the same time it would be nice to have an ability to link libraries
> In dynamic case linking to "a" and "other_lib" while it is
> sufficient to link to "a" only does not look right. Now the real
> question is how smart linker is? If it is capable of removing extra
> libs easily, then fine. Otherwise you can get really terrible
> linking times in a projects consisting of numerous libraries. It
> might be a step to N*N link time instead of N*lg(N) for well
> designed system (e.g. with dependency graph close to a binary tree).
> If link time is not affected, then there is no need to worry, and we
> can get away with all the exrta linkage, and not to worry about
> differences between static and dynamic libs.
That's right approach. Alas, I don't have 100% sure information about linker
behaviour. So, it'd needed to dig some docs, and then decide.
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