Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 10:33:42 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Andrew Crabtree <andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: DLL in djgpp???
In-Reply-To: <6dfekk$52i$1@rosenews.rose.hp.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980303103324.3022K-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Andrew Crabtree wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii wrote in message ...
> > 3) Static linking only links in those library functions which
> >           are actually used.  In contrast, a DLL includes *all* of
> >           the functions, so it is typically much larger
> My understanding is that the linker will source in all functions from a
> given object file, whether or not they are used.  It of course only sucks in
> individual object files from a library as needed to satisfy externals. This
> would have the same memory overhead as a DLL.

This is correct, but that's not what I meant.  ``Object files'' is
more accurate than ``functions'' in this context (although for DJGPP's
libc, these two are almost identical), so I will rephrase:

      3) Static linking only links in those object files from the
         library which include functions actually called by the
         program.  In contrast, a DLL includes *all* of the object
         files, so it is typically much larger.