fix: LD_BUILD_SHARED_LIBS build flag usage #260
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
cwaldren-ld
changed the title
cwaldren-ld
changed the title
cwaldren-ld
commented
Oct 18, 2023
|
|
||
| set(BUILD_TESTING "${ORIGINAL_BUILD_TESTING}") | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This line is a leftover that should have been removed. Certify is an INTERFACE library (header only.)
cwaldren-ld
commented
Oct 18, 2023
| @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ set_property(TARGET ${LIBNAME} PROPERTY | |||
| MSVC_RUNTIME_LIBRARY "MultiThreaded$<$<CONFIG:Debug>:Debug>DLL") | |||
|
|
|||
| install(TARGETS ${LIBNAME}) | |||
| if (BUILD_SHARED_LIBS AND MSVC) | |||
| if (LD_BUILD_SHARED_LIBS AND MSVC) | |||
| install(FILES $<TARGET_PDB_FILE:${LIBNAME}> DESTINATION bin OPTIONAL) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't have cmake tests that actually try to use the install files, which is why this didn't break CI.
louis-launchdarkly
approved these changes
Oct 19, 2023
Merged
cwaldren-ld
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 19, 2023
🤖 I have created a release *beep* *boop* --- <details><summary>launchdarkly-cpp-client: 3.1.1</summary> ## [3.1.1](launchdarkly-cpp-client-v3.1.0...launchdarkly-cpp-client-v3.1.1) (2023-10-19) ### Bug Fixes * LD_BUILD_SHARED_LIBS build flag usage ([#260](#260)) ([8dd473f](8dd473f)) </details> --- This PR was generated with [Release Please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please). See [documentation](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please#release-please). Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In my previous PR cleaning up cmake variables, during development I renamed the
BUILD_SHARED_LIBSflag toBUILD_STATIC_LIBS, but then reconsidered and stuck with the original naming.Unfortunately I didn't un-rename some usages of it - so we ended up having some instances of
LD_BUILD_STATIC_LIBSin ourCMakeLists.txt.It appears this didn't have an obvious impact on our build/release process because:
NOT LD_BUILD_STATIC_LIBSwould always be true (variable not defined), then it would have been setting-fvisibility=hiddenon both shared and static builds. I'm pretty sure that flag has no affect when building static libs so it was a no-op in that situation.target_sourcestrick for pulling in the boost libraries always works whether we're building static libs or dynamic libs, so another no-op.It'd be nice to test this going forward. Some ideas:
nm -gU artifact.dylib | wc -lto get the number of symbols (e.g. 8k when visibility=hidden, 26k without)Manual workflow run: