On Saturday, June 8, 2013 5:14:03 PM UTC+2, Volker Braun wrote: > > It was suggested on http://trac.sagemath.org/14699 that we rehash the old > arguments why static libraries have no place in a modular software system. > So here we go: > * No easy way to tell which static library (much less its version) is > used by a binary > * Space (both disk and memory) bloat, code will be copied into each > binary. > * Inability to benefit from updates: Once statically linked, your binary > will never use a newer (and potentially bug-fixed) version of the library > * Various debug tools (LD_PRELOAD, LD_PROFILE, LD_AUDIT) don't work > * No ASLR => security hole > > The counterargument is, basically, since you already had to compile stuff > for a shared library you might just as well install a static version, too. > And there might still be platforms that can't build shared libraries, > though I'm not aware of one that also compiles a non-trivial part of Sage; > You certainly can't use Cython without shared libraries. > Speed?
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
