2014-10-03 09:10, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 09:15:20AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2014-10-02 13:04, Matthew Hall: > > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:26:34PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > > Just out of curiosity, whats the impetus behind a single shared library > > > > here? > > > > Is it just to ease application linking operations? If so, it almost > > > > seems to me > > > > that we should abandon the individual linking method and just use this > > > > as the > > > > default output (and do simmilarly for the static linking build) > > > > > > Not clear if you wrote "single shared library" on purpose instead of > > > "single > > > static library". But for me the objective of COMBINE_LIBS usage would be > > > getting a "single static library" for my app, which just works, and > > > eliminates > > > need of start-group, end-group, weird library ordering issues, etc. I'm > > > not > > > interested personally in a "shared library" because it'd run slower. > > > > > > Personally my preference would be to do both the single libs and multiple > > > libs > > > in static format by default. Disk space is cheap, let's maximize user > > > freedom > > > and flexibility. But shared lib, since it performs less well, should be > > > discouraged by default, although allowed if needed... some people prefer > > > it > > > because it's easier to patch security vulns if you can replace a buggy > > > library > > > for all the code on a system. > > > > We need to simplify build options. So I'm fine to remove COMBINE_LIBS option > > to always enable it. > > About making only one single static library, I think it's a good idea if > > it brings a real code simplification. > > > > So the conclusion is to nack this patchset in favor of above changes. > > Sergio, comments? > > > > Frankly I did not think of users linking against single and combine lib for > different apps. > I think If the goal is to simplify code then we should just provide one build > option, either single or combine. Personally, I do not have a preference. > > So just to be clear, we would remove COMBINE_LIBS to always make a single > combine > lib or to create both single and combine? > For the later option, would we be linking apps against single or combine > libraries?
The proposal is to always build single (combined) lib AND to build separated libs in case of shared libraries. For static library: only one single (combined) static library. -- Thomas
