> On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Jianxun Zhang
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/26/16 3:45 PM, Jianxun Zhang wrote:
>>> The removed static linking was for a desire to make rmc run
>>> on systems where c libraries are not provided.
>>>
>>> But it
> On Aug 26, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/26/16 3:45 PM, Jianxun Zhang wrote:
>> The removed static linking was for a desire to make rmc run
>> on systems where c libraries are not provided.
>>
>> But it is nothing wrong to dynamically link rmc with libraries.
>> We also don
On 8/26/16 3:45 PM, Jianxun Zhang wrote:
> The removed static linking was for a desire to make rmc run
> on systems where c libraries are not provided.
>
> But it is nothing wrong to dynamically link rmc with libraries.
> We also don't have to hardcode the way of linking in Makefile
> since peop
The removed static linking was for a desire to make rmc run
on systems where c libraries are not provided.
But it is nothing wrong to dynamically link rmc with libraries.
We also don't have to hardcode the way of linking in Makefile
since people can specify it in RMC_CFLAGS passed to make command.
