On 2017-08-16 22:08, Sieghard wrote:
* I think creating header translation units are also slightly less
effort than runtime loading.
Could you please explain? Don't you need the "header" information in any
case,
Yes you need them in both cases, but the runtime loading requires more
On 2017-08-16 23:50, fredvs wrote:
So, IMHO and, please, without opening any war, I would vote in a utopic
world for a compiler that gives me the choice.
It's not the compiler that decides that, its the developer and how he
implemented the header translation unit. Nothing stops you from
Hello.
I am not sure about the terminology but let'say:
- Staticaly Linking = use libX11.so = store some data in ELF, more safe...
- Dynamicaly Linking = use libX11.so.6 = more freedom, can use dynlib
That said, both linkings have advantages.
And I am not sure for libX11 that Staticaly
Sehr geehrter Herr Geldenhuys,
Sie schrieben am Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:09:47 +0100:
> On 2017-08-16 15:46, fredvs wrote:
> > If you develop from scratch, what are the advantages to link a library
> > vs to load it dynamically ?
>
> From my personal point of view...
>
>* dependency is
On Wednesday 16 August 2017 15:52:38 fredvs wrote:
> Hello Graeme.
>
> OK, understood that libX11.so is needed for linking against that library.
>
> But ( aaargh, I am unbearable), is it really needed to link libX11.so ?
>
No.
> Could fpc do like it does for libc, consider libX11 as a "coomon"
On 2017-08-16 15:46, fredvs wrote:
If you develop from scratch, what are the advantages to link a library vs to
load it dynamically ?
From my personal point of view...
* dependency is checked at compile time
* dependency is checked immediately when you try and run the binary
* 'ldd' can
Re-re...-re hello.
I profit that I am still not banned from mse mailing-list.
(All development fora, when I ask things about linker --> or banned or
insulted (FreeBSD, fpc, ...).
If you develop from scratch, what are the advantages to link a library vs to
load it dynamically ?
Fre;D
--
View
> As I mentioned in a private message, the unversioned symlink shared library
files are only needed during linking time (ie: when you compile your
program).
Huh, I was asking if the fact of linking was absolutely necessary, not if
the unversioned symlink was needed.
> If you did want to change
On 2017-08-16 14:52, fredvs wrote:
But ( aaargh, I am unbearable), is it really needed to link libX11.so ?
As I mentioned in a private message, the unversioned symlink shared
library files are only needed during linking time (ie: when you compile
your program). Those symlink files are NOT
Hello Graeme.
OK, understood that libX11.so is needed for linking against that library.
But ( aaargh, I am unbearable), is it really needed to link libX11.so ?
Could fpc do like it does for libc, consider libX11 as a "coomon" library
and only load it (without to link it) ?
And that way, spare
On 2017-08-16 14:10, fredvs wrote:
Here better explanation of the utility of libX11.so (many thanks Graeme for
the infos).
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/475/how-do-so-shared-object-numbers-work
Yes, that is a very good explanation. Read the full question, and the
two answers that
Hello Wkitty.
Many thanks for your clear explanation in fpc-forum.
> the thing that keep me using fpc till now is mseide/msegui
Ha, I see that you have good taste so I will try imgui.
By the way, thanks for the many times you help me in Lazarus forum.
Fre;D
--
View this message in
12 matches
Mail list logo
