On Thursday 17 August 2017 00:50:29 fredvs wrote:
> 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
>
AFAIK statically linking
On 2017-08-17 07:18, Martin Schreiber wrote:
I don't understand why FPC uses the version-less library
names instead of the mayor version names where the bindings are made for.
Maybe a misunderstanding happened at ancient times...
No, they are simply following the guidelines of Unix-type
On Thursday 17 August 2017 10:54:31 Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> On 2017-08-17 07:18, Martin Schreiber wrote:
> > I don't understand why FPC uses the version-less library
> > names instead of the mayor version names where the bindings are made for.
> > Maybe a misunderstanding happened at ancient
Sehr geehrter Herr Geldenhuys,
Sie schrieben am Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:25:29 +0100:
> > So the "guidelines for Unix-type systems" are not appropriate for Free
> > Pascal C-library binding units IMHO.
>
> Indeed a valid problem, and something I have thought about myself. The
> problem being the
Sehr geehrter Herr fredvs,
Sie schrieben am Wed, 16 Aug 2017 17:50:29 -0500 (CDT):
> I am not sure about the terminology but let'say:
Yes.
> - Staticaly Linking = use libX11.so = store some data in ELF, more safe...
Static linking means to insert at least all of the code (& possibly data)
Sehr geehrter Herr Geldenhuys,
Sie schrieben am Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:08:32 +0100:
> >> * 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
On Thursday 17 August 2017 15:25:29 Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>
> Would you mind if I forward your reply to the FPC mailing list to see
> what they think or recommend about such a situation?
>
No problem, I have a "thick coat" as we speak in German. ;-)
Martin
On 2017-08-17 13:54, Martin Schreiber wrote:
So the "guidelines for Unix-type systems" are not appropriate for Free Pascal
C-library binding units IMHO.
Indeed a valid problem, and something I have thought about myself. The
problem being the linker doesn't support versioned library names, so
> A hypothetical example
Huh, sorry, but what differs from the example that I post here and in fpc
forum ?
Fre;D
--
View this message in context:
http://mseide-msegui-talk.13964.n8.nabble.com/MSEide-MSEgui-talk-MSE-and-XLib-tp5p37.html
Sent from the mseide-msegui-talk mailing list archive
> It's not the compiler that decides that
Yes, I know that, but it is fpc that gives the code of /packages/x11, it is
what I wanted to say.
> Nothing stops you from creating your own dynamic linking header.
Indeed. Creating dynamic Pascal linking header is my specialty. ( See
projects uos, sak,
On Thursday 17 August 2017 17:53:50 fredvs wrote:
> > A hypothetical example
>
> Huh, sorry, but what differs from the example that I post here and in fpc
> forum ?
>
Probably nothing. As I wrote before, FPC people probably misunderstood the
situation. Can happen, me and you too. ;-)
But it has
11 matches
Mail list logo
