On Sep 29, 2000, Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any reason why libtool convenience libraries use an
> intermediate static library? Isn't it possible to just add the object
> files directly to the link command? Are issues such as command line
> length involved here?
I don't think command-line length plays a very important role here,
even thought it can indeed make a difference. One of the important
points, as I see it, is that, as soon as you create a library, you
should be allowed to remove the object files from which it is
composed, while still keeping the library functional. If you just
used them, this wouldn't work.
That said, I've always wanted to change the way we deal with
convenience libraries. Alternate implementations could range from
copying (or hard-linking) the component object files into a directory
named after the convenience library, to linking a relocatable object
file out of the components. I'd also like to have PIC and non-PIC
versions of convenience libraries; PIC versions would be used to
create shared libraries, and non-PIC would be used for static
libraries as well as executables.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
_______________________________________________
Libtool mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
