Why are there two different kinds of linking, i.e. static and dynamic?
I’ve been bitten for the n-th time now by a library mismatch between a build and deployment environment. The build environment had libruby.so.2.0 and the deployment environment had libruby.a. One ruby was built with RVM, the other was built with ruby-build. The reason I ran into a problem was because zookeeper was compiled in a build environment that had the shared library but the deployment environment only had the static library.
Why are there two different kinds of linking, i.e. static and dynamic?
I’ve been bitten for the n-th time now by a library mismatch between a build and deployment environment. The build environment had libruby.so.2.0 and the deployment environment had libruby.a. One ruby was built with RVM, the other was built with ruby-build. The reason I ran into a problem was because zookeeper was compiled in a build environment that had the shared library but the deployment environment only had the static library.
What’s wrong with statically linking the STL into multiple shared libraries?
Here is the scenario:
What’s wrong with statically linking the STL into multiple shared libraries?
Here is the scenario:
How can there be “moral reasons” to avoid static linking?
SDL 2’s installation page contains the following comment on static linking:
What is the difference between a static library and an archive library?
In the comments of a recent answer, I equated a static library with an archive of compiled object files.