Brandon Van Every wrote: > Apple has deliberately depreciated static linking of user executables on > Mac OS X. Any time you try to link statically with Apple's ld, if a > dynamic library of the same name is available, it grabs that instead. > Not sure if the Autoconf build is affected by this, but the CMake build > is.
Hello, the autotools builds use GNU libtool to wrap all compiler and linker calls and libtool somehow manages to pass a correct command line to the MacOS X linker. > We worked around it by disabling the building and installation of > static executables. [...] > > We could rename the static libraries on Mac OS X to things like > libchicken-s.a. This would make it easy for users to avoid the ld > behavior, as static and dynamic libs would have different names. Do Mac > OS X users think this is worth doing? Personally, I am perfectly happy with the dynamic libraries and executables and would always try to use those if at all possible. And if I really need the static libraries, I know how to link to them whatever name they have. I would only change the behaviour of the build if it doesn't mean a lot of work. If the library names were changed, though, I would try to keep them identical across all platforms to reduce confusion of the users ;-) cu, Thomas _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
