From: sparhawk AT eunet DOT at (Gerhard Gruber) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Making Libraries Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 19:57:38 GMT Organization: Customer of EUnet Austria Lines: 32 Message-ID: <35a3e124.2129664@news.Austria.EU.net> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: e103.dynamic.vienna.at.eu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk Destination: Eli Zaretskii From: Gruber Gerhard Group: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:19:16 +0300 (IDT): >> Shared librarys could be supported the way older compiler used overlays. I >> remeber that Turbo C2.0 used overlays and this was AFAIK quite transparent to >> the code. > >IMHO, overlays aren't worth the hassle. They have all the disadvantages >of shared libraries (having a program depend on several files) without >the advantages (saving disk space). That depends on what you are doing. We have some projects in my company where multiple programs run with the same basic libraries. Fixing a bug in one of these requires to ship out only this one library and fixing it in all programs at once. If we used static linking then we had to rebuild all programs and ship them out seperately. I don't know if DJGPP is used for commercial projects other than games or smaller programs, but I think with bigger projects where you create dependencies creating shared libraries would be worth the effort. I also prefer to have an application in one single chunk but sometimes it pays off. On the other hand, windows programmers seem to make a contest to create as many DLLs as possible. Maybe customers expect to get a lot of DLLs even if they wouldn't need them, so they are created. -- Bye, Gerhard email: sparhawk AT eunet DOT at g DOT gruber AT sis DOT co DOT at Spelling corrections are appreciated.