On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:26:34PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > Just out of curiosity, whats the impetus behind a single shared library here? > Is it just to ease application linking operations? If so, it almost seems to > me > that we should abandon the individual linking method and just use this as the > default output (and do simmilarly for the static linking build) > > Neil
Not clear if you wrote "single shared library" on purpose instead of "single static library". But for me the objective of COMBINE_LIBS usage would be getting a "single static library" for my app, which just works, and eliminates need of start-group, end-group, weird library ordering issues, etc. I'm not interested personally in a "shared library" because it'd run slower. Personally my preference would be to do both the single libs and multiple libs in static format by default. Disk space is cheap, let's maximize user freedom and flexibility. But shared lib, since it performs less well, should be discouraged by default, although allowed if needed... some people prefer it because it's easier to patch security vulns if you can replace a buggy library for all the code on a system. Matthew.
