[fpc-pascal] Re: linux: should we hard-code versioned or unversioned shared libraries in our apps?

Marco van de Voort marcov at stack.nl
Thu Aug 16 14:28:11 CEST 2012

In our previous episode, Luca Olivetti said:
> >> If dynamic linking is so great, why do we constant, constantly have these
> >> discussions and worse all these illadvised changes?
> >
> > Because the problem is not in dynamic versus static.
> >
> > We would have exactly the same discussions if they were statically linked.
> > Only it would be 'the app XYZ does not start, fails with library not
> > found'.
> > which would be a system message.
> Static linking to me means the executable is self-contained and doesn't 
> rely on any external libraries.
> Maybe you mean "static" as in "the executable has the dynamic library 
> name hardcoded and it will be automatically loaded by ld instead of 
> dynloading it explicitly"?

Yes. The _dependency_ on the library is static. Not the library itself.

More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list