> On 3. Jun 2017, at 16:40, Harald Welte <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Holger,
Hi, > I actually really liked the idea as an elegant way to have test cases > access more "private" / "low-end" functions inside the implementation, > while ensuring only proper APIs are exposed to actual applications > (which use dynamic libs). I would actually like to use that in all the > other libraries / code we have. As time permits I will see if we can get the libtool m4 not generate the --disable-static option or at least error on it. > #define STATIC static > in production builds, and define it to nothing in the build for unit > tests, if needed. yes, something like this is done in Qt when building for testing but I think the setup is complicated for us. >> The second part is that I had preferred the sccp library to be static >> only to avoid having to do proper ABI checking/versioning. If we fix >> the above, maybe we have to fix this part too? > > I'm not sure why it should be different from all the other libosmo* > libraries in that regard? Historically as being one of the first libraries? I had no goal of a clean namespace, API, etc. holger
