Re: [Firebird-devel] Static vs dynamic linkage

[Paul R. <pr...@ib...>]

Alex Peshkov wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 October 2007 14:36, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote:
>> Paul Reeves escreveu:
>>>   o statically linking just fbclient.
>>>      This requires building static libs and dynamic libs which means more
>>>      msvc projects which adds to the existing maintenance issue - we
>>>      already have too many msvc projects in the build.
>> Please, don't consider adding more projects.
> 
> BTW, static linkage is anyway not an option for FB3 - FB3 itself is a set of 
> dynamic libraries. 

But we don't have this problem with Fb3. :-) Or, to put it another way, 
last time I looked, Vulcan didn't have a small client library like 
fbclient/gds32.dll. We might be able to dispense completely with legacy 
support for a client library in <sys>. If that is the case then this 
problem has gone.


> Or you are getting serious to link each statically with MS 
> runtime? In that case it's better to use MinGW + gcc :-)

Well, sometimes I wonder if MinGW + gcc might not be such a bad idea. 
The MSVC IDE is a great development environment, and the compiler and 
linker execute quickly, and produce well optimised code. OTOH, microsoft 
are now releasing a new compiler at a rate of roughly one a year. Since 
2002 we have had 7.0, 7.1, 8.0 and 8.1. Orcas is in beta and due next 
year. Each major release sees changes to project file management, and 
project file compatibility from release to release is problematic. We 
are already trying to maintain support for projects for 6.0, 7.1 and 
8.0. And we will have to consider the benefits of Orcas when it arrives. 
I don't think we can go on supporting every MS compiler in this way.


Paul
-- 

Paul Reeves
http://www.ibphoenix.com
Supporting users of Firebird and InterBase