On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Greg Wooledge wrote:
Wow... excellent answer, and fast... thanks!
> > Is there a reason
> > for *not* using shared libs?
>
> Yes. For one, it's more complex. (On Linux/ELF, it's nearly trivial;
> on something like HP-UX or AIX it's a bit harder than the above; and on
> Linux/a.out, you might as well just forget it entirely.) Also, shared
> libraries take a little bit longer to load than statically linked code.
> Finally, the benefits of shared libraries (reduced disk space, and
> reduced memory usage if multiple copies of the shared lib are in use
> simultaneously) only occur if you link two or more programs with the
> same shared library. Is this libmp3lame library really of use to any
> program other than lame?
>
Well, there is already platform specific stuff in the Makefile, shared
libs could be used on platforms where it works well...
I certainly feel libmp3lame is of use to other programs (that must have
been the reason to move the code into a library in the first place?).
One more advantage with shared libraries for the end user (that only
installs binary packages, RPMs, DEBs etc for Linux) is that it is
possible to upgrade the LAME library without upgrading RipperXYZ,
MP3recorder deluxe 2000 etc. There are in fact many uses of MP3,
in my case I want to use LAME for a video editing program, to handle
MP3 compressed audio in AVI files...
Also, one last humble suggestion: GNU automake/autoconf?
/cyr
--
MP3 ENCODER mailing list ( http://geek.rcc.se/mp3encoder/ )
