Re: [dev] [libutf] Proposal for additional rune utility functions

From: FRIGN <>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:44:36 +0100

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:45:29 +0100 wrote:

Hey k0ga,

> Yes, I speak about static linking, because It is what we have in
> sbase, so dynamic linking is outside of this discussion (ant it is
> not suckless :P). And maybe compilers are smarters, but the link
> process is the same. Try it and you will see it. Even if you find
> some too much smart linker that does it, you are doing something
> wrong and requiring a more complex toolchain. I hope we will
> not have to implement this kind of linkers some day ;).
> Again, try it.

just for the record, as discussed in IRC you are right about it.
Apparently, compilers are not as smart as I had in mind previously.
Going the separate approach is a good thing, so I welcome this



Received on Wed Feb 11 2015 - 00:44:36 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Feb 11 2015 - 00:48:07 CET