Beman Dawes wrote: > At 09:07 PM 3/11/2003, Edward Diener wrote: > > >While I realize it may be the only answer to the problems you > mention, >making libraries link to the static RTL where they would > normally link to >the dynamic RTL is IMHO a bad general solution. My > reason for thinking > this > >is the problems which always seem to occur when modules mix static > and >dynamic RTL routines in their linkage to other libraries. I > can't prove >this always causes problems but I have seen where using > either all >dynamic RTL or > >all static RTL when creating an executable and accompanying > libraries is >always a safe run-time solution, at least as far as > reusability of the > RTL > >is concerned. > > While I understand this argument against "making libraries link to the > static RTL where they would normally link to the dynamic RTL", the > patch Alisdair provided doesn't alter any object libraries. It > affects regression tests only, or am I missing something?
My error. I looked at the comment and misinterpreted it rather than understanding that the patch was about testing rather than generating libraries. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
