Re: Hardcoding of .la file paths in .la files
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:57:40AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:38:49AM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 09:52:28AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > I really feel we should get rid of all these static libraries. Who uses
> > > static linking now that even our glibc doesn't support it correctly
> > > across versions?
> > People who want their binaries to run across different Linux machines.
> Dynamic linking to an old version of glibc is more portable than
> statically linking to any version. Exhibit A is NSS; exhibit B is
> iconv. Neither works properly when statically linked unless run
> against the exact same glibc version.
The sentence I refer to reads: 'I really feel we should get rid of all
these static libraries.' _All_ static libraries. glibc is quite special
in this regard because it's likely to be present even on a minimalist
> > People who need to minimize startup times.
> Static linking does _not_ minimize startup times; in fact it's quite
> inefficient. Dynamic linking + prelinking is much faster if you care
> about startup times.
Prelinking is also quite recent and not yet available on any platform as
far as I know. Are you claiming that startup performance of statically
linked objects is equal to shared objects even without prelink?