From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-04 12:42:06
Edward Diener wrote:
> I have argued this case before in general, and agree with it.
I think I've been in that argument ;-)
>In all the
> dlls and libs which I have ever created as a Windows programmer I have
> followed this pattern.
I haven't. For me the choice of runtime has always been independent of
the type of product I'm building.
> When distributing third-party libraries I think it is
> normal to distribute either an all dll system, with all dlls using the dll
> version of the compiler's run-time library, or a single executable, with all
> libraries linked being static libraries which use the compiler's static
> version of the run-time library.
That is not a binary comparison. It's common to distribute executables
with dlls and use the dynamic runtime. It's also common to distribute
libs that use the dynamic runtime, so that users can build either exes
or dlls from that library. It is not as common to distribute a dll that
uses the static runtime, but it's not unheard of.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk