On Sun, 25 Oct 2009, Howard Chu wrote:
Yeah, I recall noticing all this in the past. That's why I usually delete .la files after build time and make sure they never get installed. On platforms where the dependent shared libraries are already listed inside a shared library's dynamic loader section, all of this .la stuff is just wasted effort (and time). So far I only see .la files being useful when statically linking,
I just did a little experiment and found if I use lt_dlopen() directly on the .so file that the modules based build "spins" (execute over and over from the shell in a tight loop) only about 10% slower than a static binary. This is much better than the 5X to 6X slowdown observed due to loading via the .la file.
Unfortunately, my software is supposed to be portable so loading via the .la file is otherwise much better. As a stopgap solution I may have my software read the .la file directly and obtain the loadable module name directly.
Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
