Boost logo

Boost :

From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-04 13:21:23

Edward Diener wrote:
> Rene Rivera wrote:
>> Edward Diener wrote:
>>> 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 building products for yourself, you can choose your own mix.
> When distributing 3rd party libraries which use auto-linking, you
> need to decide how that should work for others.

I didn't realize auto-linking was part of this argument. So far, as the
subject says, we are talking about *testing* not auto-linking.

> I still think that
> auto-linking should be dynamic rtl-dll and static rtl-static lib. Of
> course a more flexible system might allow auto-linking to be turned
> off and the end-programmer allowed to manually choose.

You mean like the currently implemented flexible system that allows you
to turn off auto-linking and build or use any variant you want?

>>> 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.
> What about the user who wants to use one's 3rd party library and
> wants to distribute the final executable as a self-contained file not
> relying on any other dlls ? This can not be done if you only have
> libraries, whether static or dynamic, which use the run-time dlls. Of
> course you may argue that a user who wishes to do this is not very
> common, but my experience is that they are, and are pretty adamant
> that such a scenario should be supported by 3rd party libraries which
> they use.

OK, I must be confused... You made the binary choice comparison. I made
the counter that it's not possible or desirable to make such binary
choices as it's up to he user what they need. And now you are siding
with what I said. Which argument are you trying to make?

-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. -
-- rrivera/ - grafik/ - 102708583/icq

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at