should we switch to the no-static paradigm?[ 8 votes ]
1.
yes
2 / 25%
2.
no
4 / 50%
3.
don't care
2 / 25%
I stumbled upon this: http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/no_static_linking.html
and it made me think, maybe ultimate++ isn't all that good when it comes to dynamically linked stuff? several external packages are getting built statically into upp apps, upgrading them in the system will not upgrade them in u++. this is an important thing to consider. also I didn't think of how nice it must be for attackers when everything has a static address. but this and the other arguments on that site IMHO are not really important for c++ development. even without namespace, templated class-members are unlikely to name-clash. randomized data and code address could probably be implemented with some specialized lib. (create several functions with a template and overwrite them randomly at run-time.) also that site nicely says that within the same project you'd better use static linking.
however, theide basically assumes all the libs you will use are available as u++ packages, therefore no support for external help-systems and no priority to scanning headers outside of the nest. also building and installing of shared libs isn't that easy to accomplish. should this approach be changed?
Members
Pages
Help
Register
Login
Home
2 / 25%
