Re: [pooma-dev] Re: pooma-dev Digest 23 Jun 2003 12:57:44 -0000 Issue 243

[Richard Guenther]

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, John H. Hall wrote:

> Richard, et al.:
> Shared libraries are big deal for the old major customer of POOMA, the
> Blanca Project. Link times with shared libraries were minutes compared
> to hours for static libraries. While a final optimized release might
> not want to rely on shared libraries fro some performance aspect, the
> debug cycle will probably need them. On the SGI's and Q machines almost
> all the system libraries are shared libraries, so I am not really sure
> what impact shared libraries have on the final code performance.
> John Hall

Shared libraries with Linux usually mean you have restricted heap size and
portability issues if build machine != computation host. But I take your
argument for link times.

So I vote against re-inventing libtool just to avoid using it. This makes
the proposed tools, again, autoconf, automake and libtool.

Richard.