On static library naming

[Jason Evans]

On Apr 19, 2012, at 10:06 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Currently, building jemalloc brings up three libraries:
> - libjemalloc.a, static, non-PIC
> - libjemalloc_pic.a, static, PIC
> - libjemalloc.so, shared, PIC
> 
> The world of Windows is kind of different. First, everything is PIC.
> Then, to link against a shared library, you have an import library.
> So you have:
> - library.dll, shared, PIC
> - library.lib, import lib
> and you can have
> - something_else.lib, static library
> 
> I have several questions related to this:
> - Do we want a static library for Windows?
> - If we do, how should it be named? (for example, NSPR uses a _s.lib
>  suffix instead of .lib)
> - If we do, wouldn't it make sense to kind of uniformize the naming
>  across platforms?

I don't know whether a static library would be useful on Windows (replacing malloc on Windows is black magic that I'm not current on), and if so, how to name it.  Whatever you decide, the current naming scheme should remain for the Unix-like systems.

Thanks,
Jason