2007/6/14, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 6/13/07, Jesper Eskilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2007/6/13, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > But why don't you just ship your users a dynamic lib? As far as I > > know, there are no restrictions on dynamic libs including static libs. > > That is an alternative, but it requires a non-trivial amount of work, > testing, documentation fixes etc., which I'd prefer not to embark on > at the moment. I take it you have no infrastructure for dynamic libs at all in your code then? Because if you did, like all your declspecs and so forth, it's pretty easy to add in CMake.
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. Is it really impossible to pass an option to the linker when creating a static library? -- /Jesper
_______________________________________________ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
