Rory Browne wrote:
What I was hoping for was a mythical linker options a-la Mr Foster,
which would remove non-referenced, or non-internally referenced
functions, when linking directly to libblah.a "gcc -o blah
> Personally if I was using SQLite I'd use it as a dynamic library.
That would be optimal, but at the same time, a single file, requires
much less intervention by someone installing, especially if they are not
so familiar with Linux... or at least... in theory
> Unless you really need your binaries/deps to be as small as
> possible(perhaps for embedded work)
I think there is a vague to outside chance that the resulting binary
_might_ get recompiled/retargetted for use on some sort of low end
motorola CPU, used under cygwin or just banged out in a production
version under WhiteBox/Suse
> > there is no(?) link-time advantage to putting functions
> > into individual files for a shared library, which is,
> > IMHO, why this seems to be a dying art/skill/science?
To be honest, I've never heard of putting each function into a seperate
file, I'd say there's more then a few nails in that particular coffin !
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!