> From: Hal Rosenstock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 4:59 AM > > Hi Fab, > > On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 13:50, Fab Tillier wrote: > > > > That's correct - structure definitions change between the debug and > > release builds of complib. The code above is there because in Linux, > > the library created by complib has the same name in debug and release > > builds, so it is possible to have a mismatch between the type of > > build for opensm and complib. In Windows, I solved this by adding a > > debug-only suffix to the library name (complibd vs. complib) so that > > the risk of linkage errors is eliminated. I have suggested in the > > past that the Linux complib adopt a similar naming scheme and > > that doing runtime checks for linkage errors was indicative of a > > poor design. > > > > This has been the basis for me pushing back on adding the > > cl_is_debug function to the Windows version of complib. > > Is there a convention for naming debug libraries in Linux ?
I'm no Linux expert, so I have no clue here. Perhaps the C libraries already have some method? > Is there any reason why the 2 versions of the libraries (with different > names) shouldn't be allowed concurrently to exist and just link with the > desired one ? There is none that I can think of. In fact, the Windows drivers allow both the debug and release versions of the user-mode components to co-exist, as well as mixing debug and release kernel drivers. This makes it easy to debug a single component without affecting timings in the whole stack. - Fab _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
