Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > Static linking is bad for many reasons, and you shouldn't be doing > unless you really really know what you are doing.
Oh? The issue here is that we have a very large number of servers, not all which can be guaranteed to have all the required shared libraries (or same versions) of that on the development server. Could you elaborate on why static linking is bad? > But "random" crashes on the same machine on which the binary was > built is not one of these reasons. > To reproduce this, it would help to know exactly what OS you > are using, and exactly how you built this static exe. > If may also help to know for which values of "i" you observed > the crash. > If the OS is Linux, knowing whether exec-shield is on and > randomize_va_space are on may also give a clue. It is Linux, SuSE 9.2. The project I am working on links against libqdbm, libiconv, libz and libpthread (nptl version). The value for "i" was around 60000, and the size of each object was 72 bytes. I'll try to recreate a small example that exhibits the crash. _______________________________________________ help-gplusplus mailing list help-gplusplus@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gplusplus
