Re: Initialization of static anonymous-namespace members from a
dynamically loaded lib
On Jan 10, 11:01 am, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet"
<alf.p.steinbach+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
* James Kanze, on 10.01.2011 11:26:
On Jan 10, 12:05 am, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet"
<alf.p.steinbach+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
* James Kanze, on 10.01.2011 00:03:
On Jan 9, 9:00 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach /Usenet"<alf.p.steinbach
+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
* m0shbear, on 09.01.2011 21:56:
[...]
(I don't know of any that can dynamically load a
library. But despite the name, under Windows, a DLL is not a
library.)
Windows Dynamically Loaded Library, *nix Shared Library.
What's a Unix shared library? I've never heard the term before.
Try <url:http://www.google.com/search?q=%22shared+library%22>.
You can find anything using Google:-). It never occured to me.
I guess just basing my knowledge on the Posix standard and the
Sun manual. And conversations with other Unix specialists:
after all, .so didn't come from shared library, but from shared
object.
The fact remains that in computer science, "library" means (or
always used to mean) a collection of object files, each of which
was included only if it resolved an unresolved external. When
dynamically linking, it's all or nothing.
Anyway, trying your link, I see that it's not just newbes using
the term, even if Posix and Sun don't. The Linux and gcc
communities seem to have adopted it. Which makes me think that
I'm fighting a loosing battle for linguistic purity. The fact
remains that the behavior *is* different from that traditionally
associated with libraries, and that we do get questions (or
complaints) from people surprised that static libraries don't
behave the same as the dynamically linked stuff. (Hmm. I think
in the future, I'll just call it "dynamically linked stuff", and
avoid the issue of whether it is a library or not:-).)
--
James Kanze