I figured that Lua would continue to be linked statically for Sc1.exe. It occurs to me that would mean having to compile all of Sc1's Lua-related object files to a different location than SciTE's, since one would use dllexport / dllimport and the other would not. I don't really like that.
A few alternatives: 1) Use dllexport when compiling LuaExtension.cxx for Sc1.exe. LuaExtension.cxx is the only Lua-related file that would be compiled differently between SciTE and Sc1. As a side effect, when building with MinGW, Sc1.exe may end up with the Lua symbols in the EXPORTS section of its PE header. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; the same happens with Scintilla_DirectPointer already. If it was deemed a "good thing" then we could force MSVC and Borland to do the same. 2) Use a DEF file when linking lua5.1.dll, and not use dllexport / dllimport at all. Microsoft no longer recommends this, but I think it still works. Is it supported on all the compilers that we use? "Neil Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Bruce Dodson: > >> Neil, I know you preferred not to have another external >> dependency. Is it worth moving the Lua core out to a >> DLL? >> We can keep it as an "internal dependency" by compiling >> it >> from the SciTE source tree and distributing it with the >> product, like we do with SciLexer.dll. > > How can this be made to work with the single file > Sc1.exe which is > over 20% of Windows executable downloads? > > Neil _______________________________________________ Scite-interest mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.lyra.org/mailman/listinfo/scite-interest
