Since CMake version 2.8.8, you can use "object libraries" to avoid the duplicated compilation of the object files. Using Christopher Bruns' example of a library with two source files:
# list of source files
set(libsrc source1.c source2.c)
# this is the "object library" target: compiles the sources only once
add_library(objlib OBJECT ${libsrc})
# shared libraries need PIC
set_property(TARGET objlib PROPERTY POSITION_INDEPENDENT_CODE 1)
# shared and static libraries built from the same object files
add_library(MyLib_shared SHARED $<TARGET_OBJECTS:objlib>)
add_library(MyLib_static STATIC $<TARGET_OBJECTS:objlib>)
From the CMake docs:
An object library compiles source files but does not archive or link their object files into a library. Instead other targets created by
add_library()oradd_executable()may reference the objects using an expression of the form$<TARGET_OBJECTS:objlib>as a source, where objlib is the object library name.
Simply put, the add_library(objlib OBJECT ${libsrc}) command instructs CMake to compile the source files to *.o object files. This collection of *.o files is then referred to as $<TARGET_OBJECT:objlib> in the two add_library(...) commands that invoke the appropriate library creation commands that build the shared and static libraries from the same set of object files. If you have lots of source files, then compiling the *.o files can take quite long; with object libraries you compile them only once.
The price you pay is that the object files must be built as position-independent code because shared libraries need this (static libs don't care). Note that position-independent code may be less efficient, so if you aim for maximal performance then you'd go for static libraries. Furthermore, it is easier to distribute statically linked executables.
Answer from András Aszódi on Stack OverflowOne library target building both static and shared - Development - CMake Discourse
Add CMake option to choose building SHARED vs STATIC
Static vs Shared lib
c++ - Difference between static and shared libraries? - Stack Overflow
Videos
Since CMake version 2.8.8, you can use "object libraries" to avoid the duplicated compilation of the object files. Using Christopher Bruns' example of a library with two source files:
# list of source files
set(libsrc source1.c source2.c)
# this is the "object library" target: compiles the sources only once
add_library(objlib OBJECT ${libsrc})
# shared libraries need PIC
set_property(TARGET objlib PROPERTY POSITION_INDEPENDENT_CODE 1)
# shared and static libraries built from the same object files
add_library(MyLib_shared SHARED $<TARGET_OBJECTS:objlib>)
add_library(MyLib_static STATIC $<TARGET_OBJECTS:objlib>)
From the CMake docs:
An object library compiles source files but does not archive or link their object files into a library. Instead other targets created by
add_library()oradd_executable()may reference the objects using an expression of the form$<TARGET_OBJECTS:objlib>as a source, where objlib is the object library name.
Simply put, the add_library(objlib OBJECT ${libsrc}) command instructs CMake to compile the source files to *.o object files. This collection of *.o files is then referred to as $<TARGET_OBJECT:objlib> in the two add_library(...) commands that invoke the appropriate library creation commands that build the shared and static libraries from the same set of object files. If you have lots of source files, then compiling the *.o files can take quite long; with object libraries you compile them only once.
The price you pay is that the object files must be built as position-independent code because shared libraries need this (static libs don't care). Note that position-independent code may be less efficient, so if you aim for maximal performance then you'd go for static libraries. Furthermore, it is easier to distribute statically linked executables.
Yes, it's moderately easy. Just use two "add_library" commands:
add_library(MyLib SHARED source1.c source2.c)
add_library(MyLibStatic STATIC source1.c source2.c)
Even if you have many source files, you can place the list of sources in a Cmake variable, so it's still easy to do.
On Windows you should probably give each library a different name, since there is a ".lib" file for both shared and static. But on Linux and Mac you can even give both libraries the same name (e.g. libMyLib.a and libMyLib.so):
set_target_properties(MyLibStatic PROPERTIES OUTPUT_NAME MyLib)
But I don't recommend giving both the static and dynamic versions of the library the same name. I prefer to use different names because that makes it easier to choose static vs. dynamic linkage on the compile line for tools that link to the library. Usually I choose names like libMyLib.so (shared) and libMyLib_static.a (static). (Those would be the names on linux.)
Trying to understand the difference between a static and shared lib in the context of CMake.
The latter is linked dynamically and loaded at runtime (not sure how it's loaded at runtime though. The dynamic linking I can relate to is for kernel modules which can be added/removed via modprobe/rmmod but that certainly isn't the case here) whereas static lib is picked up at compile time.
Is the idea that a Shared lib doesn't get integrated into the actual executable of the program (which saves some space & exists in separate .so files) and rather only referred/linked to when there's a call to it in the application for instance?
Shared libraries are .so (or in Windows .dll, or in OS X .dylib) files. All the code relating to the library is in this file, and it is referenced by programs using it at run-time. A program using a shared library only makes reference to the code that it uses in the shared library.
Static libraries are .a (or in Windows .lib) files. All the code relating to the library is in this file, and it is directly linked into the program at compile time. A program using a static library takes copies of the code that it uses from the static library and makes it part of the program. [Windows also has .lib files which are used to reference .dll files, but they act the same way as the first one].
There are advantages and disadvantages in each method:
Shared libraries reduce the amount of code that is duplicated in each program that makes use of the library, keeping the binaries small. It also allows you to replace the shared object with one that is functionally equivalent, but may have added performance benefits without needing to recompile the program that makes use of it. Shared libraries will, however have a small additional cost for the execution of the functions as well as a run-time loading cost as all the symbols in the library need to be connected to the things they use. Additionally, shared libraries can be loaded into an application at run-time, which is the general mechanism for implementing binary plug-in systems.
Static libraries increase the overall size of the binary, but it means that you don't need to carry along a copy of the library that is being used. As the code is connected at compile time there are not any additional run-time loading costs. The code is simply there.
Personally, I prefer shared libraries, but use static libraries when needing to ensure that the binary does not have many external dependencies that may be difficult to meet, such as specific versions of the C++ standard library or specific versions of the Boost C++ library.
A static library is like a bookstore, and a shared library is like... a library. With the former, you get your own copy of the book/function to take home; with the latter you and everyone else go to the library to use the same book/function. So anyone who wants to use the (shared) library needs to know where it is, because you have to "go get" the book/function. With a static library, the book/function is yours to own, and you keep it within your home/program, and once you have it you don't care where or when you got it.