Greg Stein wrote: > > > Because Python supports a configuration time option to link modules > > statically. Of course. I wasn't thinking. But here's another naive question, on what platforms is it significantly better to statically link and how is it significantly better? > Not to mention that the .so is loaded into the process' address space. I > don't think that you can have two symbols in the space with the same name. I've never been clear on that issue. It seems like an unreasonably strict constraint. Adding a function called "doit" to one library could break another dynamically library that happens to have the same name defined? I'd call that a bug in the dynamic loading infrastructure (and certainly not a problem on Windows!)! -- Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by corporate consensus "Computer Associates is expected to come in with better than expected earnings." Bob O'Brien, quoted in - http://www.fool.com/news/2000/foth000316.htm
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4