News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why has Plan 9 chosen statically linked binaries instead of dynamic ones? (2004). Parent comment

Re:Why has Plan 9 chosen statically linked binaries instead ... by tom_mellior on Friday February 15, 2019 @04:10PM (#19174748)
That's great, but can you now demonstrate the same with Qt and KDE, as you claimed above?

FWIW, I believe (but could very well be wrong) the reason that this works this well with MUSL is that every function is defined in its own translation unit. I doubt that Qt and KDE do that.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why has Plan 9 chosen statically linked binaries instead ... by nwmcsween on Saturday February 16, 2019 @12:35AM (#19177261)
The library/project has to be designed right. Musl has dummy references that make static linking work without pulling in a bunch of junk. This is very much a language/project issue and I wish more languages actually looked at the huge mess of dep graphs that are needed for simple programs.
[ Parent | on HN ]