From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <mhall@mhcomputing.net>
Received: from mail.mhcomputing.net (master.mhcomputing.net [74.208.46.186])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C93757E17
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  2 Oct 2014 21:58:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail.mhcomputing.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
 id 6359580B615; Thu,  2 Oct 2014 13:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 13:04:20 -0700
From: Matthew Hall <mhall@mhcomputing.net>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Message-ID: <20141002200420.GB29590@mhcomputing.net>
References: <1412265386-26291-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
 <20141002172634.GE4900@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20141002172634.GE4900@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with
 CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 19:58:07 -0000

On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 01:26:34PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, whats the impetus behind a single shared library here?
> Is it just to ease application linking operations?  If so, it almost seems to me
> that we should abandon the individual linking method and just use this as the
> default output (and do simmilarly for the static linking build)
> 
> Neil

Not clear if you wrote "single shared library" on purpose instead of "single 
static library". But for me the objective of COMBINE_LIBS usage would be 
getting a "single static library" for my app, which just works, and eliminates 
need of start-group, end-group, weird library ordering issues, etc. I'm not 
interested personally in a "shared library" because it'd run slower.

Personally my preference would be to do both the single libs and multiple libs 
in static format by default. Disk space is cheap, let's maximize user freedom 
and flexibility. But shared lib, since it performs less well, should be 
discouraged by default, although allowed if needed... some people prefer it 
because it's easier to patch security vulns if you can replace a buggy library 
for all the code on a system.

Matthew.