Re: v2: gcc and static linking

From: Andre Hentz (ahentz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-22 23:30:11

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> About library ordering: yes, <linkflags> won't assure right order. But 
> <find-library> won't do this either. Only 'lib' targets allow to specify 
> order dependencies.
> 
> I should note that we can only generate command line line this
> 
> <static libraries generated by boost.build> 
> -Wl,-Bstatic -lstatic_library_1, -Wl,-Bstatic_library2
> 
> I.e. searched libraries will be always after those created by Boost.Build. I 
> guess that's OK? 
> 
> Anyway, I believe that in your case library order is not an issue? If so, I'd 
> recomment using linkflags for a while, until more users come complaining.
>

Here's a summary:
- Library order is important so <linkflags> doesn't work. I tried.
- searched libraries won't work. At least, I couldn't find a way
to specify a full pathname for them, instead of using -l

> If they come, the right thing to do, IMO, would be
> 1. Drop <find-shared-library> and <find-static-library>, as they are not 
> symmetric and platfrom-specific.
> 2. Add a new '<force-static-link>' feature. The name more accurately reflects 
> the behaviour of -Wl,-Bstatic
> 

That's a good idea. But then again, <force-static-link> would also be 
platform-specific.

Thanks for you help Volodya. I'll work something out here.

Best,

Andre Hentz