On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 11:16:03 AM EDT Michael Matz wrote: > > Why is it not recommended? Because it is not well supported or just > > because > > shared lib, by ideology, is generally preferred? > > I think the comment is indeed about the general recommendation to not link > statically.
I recall now seeing a TODO file in Git that said static linking still needed to be implemented. That's clearly not the case anymore, but gave me the impression it was still experimental. Except for a small change I had to make, dynamic Tor almost built fine. I had to make this change to Tor [1] related to inconsistently mixing enums and ints in declarations. As a C novice I was planning on sending this upstream, but I think tcc's TODO said this might be a quirk to be fixed. I'd appreciate knowing where the issue lies if someone more knowledgeable would look at it. Tor also needed uint128_t, which though it isn't required by any standard Autoconf didn't bother checking for, and the build didn't fail until the end. That I will suggest to them. [1] https://salsa.debian.org/jscott/tor/-/commit/f3eb2cef
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
