From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrei Petrov Subject: Re: dynamic libraries Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:23:35 -0800 Message-ID: <20050224002335.GB6489@liz.veritas.com> References: <20050223212813.GA3988@liz.veritas.com> <137edce4961c1b2972cb01dff8265db4@cl.cam.ac.uk> <794420537adac1b4f01e86b86acd4ff1@cl.cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <794420537adac1b4f01e86b86acd4ff1@cl.cam.ac.uk> Sender: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Keir Fraser Cc: Adam Heath , Andrei Petrov , "xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 11:19:18PM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote: > > > >Well, it just doesn't work at all on amd64, as well as other arches. > >It just > >happens to work on i386, so most people never notice it. > > Okay, can we just build -fPIC for static libraries as well, or do they > have to be non-PIC? > Building the libraries twice seems weird to me. :-) > The most common case I saw is indeed build them twice. So if both library are needed I'd do the same. PIC implies performance hit you can avoid in static library. > Another option is not to bother building dynamic libraries but to > statically link libxc and > libxutil. Avoids versioning problems and it's not like there's some big > sharing win to > be had. Any strong opinions on this? > In production environment it is enought to have only dynamic library, for development - static one sometimes is more convinient. --Andrei Petrov ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click