static libraries

Alexey Pushkin alexey.pushkin at
Fri Feb 20 19:11:29 UTC 2009

NightStrike wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Alexey Pushkin
> <alexey.pushkin at> wrote:
>> Because, with dynamic linking they'll anyway end up installing
>> private copies of all the dlls  together with the executable
>> somewhere under Program_Files/MySuperApp/bin.
> I agree that static linking is much more preferred on a windows
> platform, even for performance reasons.
> I will note, however, that there is possibly one scenario where
> shipping a dll is desirable.  That is, when you have multiple
> executables in your "Super App", and they all link to the same lib.
> In that case, having them all link to a dll that you deliver has
> advantages (especially if we get delayed loading to work).
> Plugin management for an app is another place where dll support is desirable.
> All of these, I warrant, are exceptions.  I still agree that the
> default should be static.

Well, I'm afraid it's too early to discuss what the default should
be, for now it seems to be a problem to convince RH to *PROVIDE*
static versions :-)

Concerning the defaults: without going in details (see above)
I think the default should be dynamic, and those who want
static versions (like me) will figure out how to use gcc switches.

> _______________________________________________
> fedora-mingw mailing list
> fedora-mingw at

More information about the mingw mailing list