Subject: Re: Why is cygwin.dll?
From: [email-masked] (Jeremy Blackman)

15 Jan 1997 23:38:03 -0800
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Sender: [email-masked]
Original-To: Ben Constable <[email-masked]>
Original-cc: "M.Carter" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Ben Constable wrote:

> > Now, figure on programs like grep.exe (91,648 bytes) having to include 
> > that library in their .EXE...grep is now 3 megs, instead of 91k.
> 
> No. That is totally wrong. Go compile grep or a similar program with watcom
> or visual C++. You will find that they do not have to be that big. It is
> because when you link the program, you only link the bits you need.

Yes, but my understanding was that many of the functions in cygwin.dll 
are required.  At least for complex applications.  I know this because I 
tried linking in only what I needed, and my 1 meg executable STILL grew 
to 3.5 (granted, not the 4 I projected, but still pretty honkin' huge).

Besides, we're not compiling these in Visual C++ or Watcom C.  At least 
I'm not.  I'm using gcc. :)

> I think the good thing about the DLL is that you can update the dll without
> changing heaps of executable programs. That is the idea with most DLL's.

Indeed.  Though then again, linking it in statically would prevent the 
version skew we've seen in the past (since when cygwin.dll is upgraded, 
it sometimes breaks all past programs).  Being someone who is lower on 
disk space (and granted, the application I wrote USES most of the 
functions in cygwin.dll, so maybe it wasn't the best thing to use as a 
basis), I prefer the dynamic library anyway.  :)

--Jeremy
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".