<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">2007/6/14, Brandon Van Every <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a>>:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 6/13/07, Jesper Eskilson <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a>> wrote:<br>> 2007/6/13, Brandon Van Every <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a>>:<br>> >
<br>> > But why don't you just ship your users a dynamic lib? As far as I<br>> > know, there are no restrictions on dynamic libs including static libs.<br>><br>> That is an alternative, but it requires a non-trivial amount of work,
<br>> testing, documentation fixes etc., which I'd prefer not to embark on<br>> at the moment.<br><br>I take it you have no infrastructure for dynamic libs at all in your<br>code then? Because if you did, like all your declspecs and so forth,
<br>it's pretty easy to add in CMake. </blockquote><div><br>The problem isn't CMake in that case, it's updating all the stuff around it which assumes that the lib is static: documentation (the lib is part of a SDK shipped to customers), testing, etc. That's not something I want to do at this time.
<br> <br>Is it really impossible to pass an option to the linker when creating a static library?<br></div></div><br>-- <br>/Jesper