Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries
Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries
- Subject: Re: Question about dynamic and static libraries
- From: "Peter O'Gorman" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:56:47 +0000
On Dec 29, 2005, at 12:42 AM, Ladd Van Tol wrote:
On Dec 28, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Steve Checkoway wrote:
I have to disagree with you. If I drag a static library into
Xcode, I want _that_ library to be used and I usually have a very
good reason for it. When Xcode passes libraries to the gcc I don't
want symlinks resolved for dynamic libraries and I want absolute
or relative (my choice!) paths passed for static libraries.
What I don't want is for Xcode to decide that maybe I really meant
to use -lfoo when I dragged /Users/me/some_project/libfoo.a into
the window, especially if libfoo.dylib exists in /usr/lib.
I couldn't agree more. In fact, I asked why we couldn't force
static linkage on a per-library basis a few WWDCs back. I then
filed a bug in July of 2004 (3716243). Apparently Apple doesn't see
this as a problem, because they can control the dylibs that ship
with the system. Meanwhile, developers who wish to statically link
a newer version of a library shipped by Apple (such as curl, zlib,
or libxml) have to pull their hair out dealing with search paths,
or moving aside dylibs. There are well-justified reasons for using
static libs in some circumstances -- Apple should support those of
us who need them.
I filed a patch (radar 3743177) in July of 2004 to add the flags -
Bstatic -Bdynamic to /usr/bin/ld and /usr/bin/libtool. It has, as far
as I can tell, not been looked at.
Peter
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden