On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 02:32:23PM -0400, Doug Alcorn wrote: > OK, there are three components to deal with here. Two are third party > libraries that get compiled to .a libraries. Both use C++ and I > explicitly compile them with g++ v2.95.4. On my previously listed > link command those would be represendted with '-lttxml' and '-lcbx'. > There are also three other .a libraries I build from our own source > code. All of the code is C++, but I use gcc and not g++ (again > version 2.95.4). And then there's all the actual .o files listed on > the linking command that are built with gcc (again, the files are c++) > version 2.95.4.
It doesn't matter whether you build with gcc or g++. In fact, for compile-only, I think it makes not the slightest difference. g++ 2.95.4 compiled code will NOT run if linked against libstdc++ 2.9. It just won't happen. > > You can't mix and match! If you are going to use g++ 2.95 or 3.0 to > > compile, and want the binary to be widely distributable, I recommend > > just using -static. > > The only thing we are dynamically linking against is libstdc++, > libpthread, and libm. I suppose we could statically link against > libstdc++ and dynamic against the others (since libstdc++ is the most > problematic). That would even allow us to go up to version 2.10. > > Any tips on what command line to use for doing some libraries static > and others dynamic? Does the '-static' flag only affect the > immediatly previous '-l...'? No. But you can link to libstdc++.a explicitly. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
