Rene Rivera <grafik666@[...].com>  writes:

>  [2002-10-15] Alkis Evlogimenos wrote:
>  
>  >Hi,
>  >
>  >>From a previous post (library build confusion) there was a brief mention
>  of 
>  >what a runtime-link-dynamic library is:
>  >
>  >This static library is built for linking to a dynamic runtime library.
>  >
>  >Can someone elaborate on the uses of the 2 different static library types? 
>  >More specifically which of the 2 static ones should I use to create 
>  >executables? runtime-link-dynamic or runtime-link-static, or it doesn't 
>  >matter? Why does a static library need to be different if is build for 
>  >linking to a dynamic library?
>  
>  <runtime-link> refers to the type of Standard C++ Runtime library to use.
>  Most platforms support using both a library that is statically linked, all
>  the code is bundled with your application/dll/so. And using a library that
>  is dynamically linked, i.e. it's a shared object (DLL, or SO, etc).
>  
>  Which type depends somewhat on your deployment preference, and more on the
>  specific platform you are using and what type of code you are writting. Most
>  of the time you want to use the dynamic runtime as it makes C++ exceptions
>  and memory allocs/deallocs work when using other C++ dynamic libraries. But
>  if you have an entirely self contained program you could use the static
>  runtime to reduce deployment dependencies.

I don't think we're answering his question here. Are the components of
statically-linked libraries which link to a static runtime built any
differently from those which link to a dynamic runtime? Are they
linked (Windows) or archived (Unix) any differently? I think the
answer on Unix is no in both cases. I'm not sure about Windows.

-- 
           David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
dave@[...].com * http://www.boost-consulting.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost