Re: Packaging of static libraries
On 2016-04-13 12:40:39 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre writes ("Re: Packaging of static libraries"):
> > Note that by default, shared libraries would still be used, so that
> > this would affect only users with specific applications, who would
> > want to optimize as much as possible.
> This assumption, that someone using static libraries wants to
> "optimizse as much as possible" (ie, that they would prefer a fast
> non-working program to a slow working one) is completely unfounded.
For libraries with a good testsuite (good coverage...) and checked
with an UB sanitizer, the program would be working. At least the
remaining bugs should not be related to UB.
> IMO we should be compiling almost all our code with what you are
> calling `UB sanitisation' and what I would call `traditional
Yes, especially for software dealing with external data (e.g. web
browsers, mail software, etc.), but for computations that need to
run for weeks / months / years, full optimization is important
(after doing tests with UB sanitization).
Vincent Lefèvre <email@example.com> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)