From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-12 17:31:29
Beman Dawes wrote:
> At 09:07 PM 3/11/2003, Edward Diener wrote:
>
> >While I realize it may be the only answer to the problems you
> mention, >making libraries link to the static RTL where they would
> normally link to >the dynamic RTL is IMHO a bad general solution. My
> reason for thinking
> this
> >is the problems which always seem to occur when modules mix static
> and >dynamic RTL routines in their linkage to other libraries. I
> can't prove >this always causes problems but I have seen where using
> either all >dynamic RTL or
> >all static RTL when creating an executable and accompanying
> libraries is >always a safe run-time solution, at least as far as
> reusability of the
> RTL
> >is concerned.
>
> While I understand this argument against "making libraries link to the
> static RTL where they would normally link to the dynamic RTL", the
> patch Alisdair provided doesn't alter any object libraries. It
> affects regression tests only, or am I missing something?
My error. I looked at the comment and misinterpreted it rather than
understanding that the patch was about testing rather than generating
libraries.