Re: Understanding -static

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jan  5, 2005, Akim Demaille <address@hidden> wrote:

> Le 4 janv. 05, à 00:02, Peter O'Gorman a écrit :

>> I have no idea what is supposed to happen in this situation. You have
>> specified that static libraries should not be built and also asked that
>> executables be statically linked against not-yet-installed libraries.

> Right.

Note quite.  -static, for libtool, doesn't mean `reject any dynamic
libraries', it just means `prefer static libraries over dynamic
ones'.  Yes, it's different from what compilers and linkers have done
for -static historically, but it was deemed more useful to implement
it this way.  If you really, really, absolutely need a static
executable, use -all-static.  This should get the link to fail should
a library only be available in dynamic form, or the system reject
static binaries altogether.

> Right.  But linking statically a dynamic library doesn't sound
> absurd to me (but I may be naive here).

It sounds absurd to me, FWIW :-)

> At least, it works fine on GNU/Linux.

Are you sure?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva             http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   address@hidden, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  address@hidden, gnu.org}