[Spice-devel] [PATCH spice 03/18] build-sys: build a noinst libtest.la to link to

[Marc-André Lureau]

----- Original Message -----
> > 
> > Hi
> > 
> > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Frediano Ziglio <fziglio at redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > > You are not... convenient library should not be linked to programs!
> > > Is in libtool documentation.
> > 
> > https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Static-libraries.html
> > "The key is remembering that a convenience library contains PIC
> > objects, and can be linked where a list of PIC objects makes sense;
> > i.e. into a shared library. A static convenience library contains
> > non-PIC objects, so can be linked into an old static library, or a
> > program. "
> > 
> 
> Yes, I was referring to this.
> 
> > Having -static or not doesn't change the result. All objects are
> > compiled with -fPIC. And ar of PIC objects + ld/elf is fine linking a
> > program or a library that way. Searching a bit over the web, it seems
> > to be a common practice for quite a while. Do we care so much about
> > other non-elf compilers/linkers that could in theory have issues? Even
> > win32 dll are fine with this (I created a small project to test this
> > attached). Do you know an arch/compiler that wouldn't support this?
> > 
> > What are the alternatives? To compile the library twice and pass all
> > the needed library flags when linking? I don't think we need to do all
> > that for something hypotetical we can't  test.
> > 
> 
> Why using a static library is so bad?
> Here would be perfect and working on all possible (and impossible) platforms.

That's worse, you get a warning from libtool:

libspice_server_la_LIBADD = libserver.a

  CCLD     libspice-server.la
*** Warning: Linking the shared library libspice-server.la against the
*** static library libserver.a is not portable!

> 
> Frediano
> _______________________________________________
> Spice-devel mailing list
> Spice-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
>