res wrote:
On 16.08.2005 22:24, Braden McDaniel wrote:

Well that's annoying. So why bother with msvcr71.dll at all? Why not
just build with /MT instead and pull in the static library? What does
using the DLL runtime buy you?

Disk and RAM space savings if you have multiple modules.

<shrug> Those are not so expensive that I'd make my life much more difficult for the improvement. YMMV, of course.

One heap - you can free memory allocated in some other module.

That's the major selling point. Doing without this is giving up a lot; nonetheless, I find myself considering strategies that would ameliorate its absence.

And what exactly *is* annoying? Just put msvcr71.dll alongside your
application - done.

Distributing someone else's binary is annoying; establishing an authoritative source for it when creating a distribution on an arbitrary system would, I expect, be difficult. I suppose the solution to that is to stick it in revision control. <retch>

But the real problem is for someone whose deliverable is a library rather than an application. If I want that library to be sharable by multiple applications, I can't very well have it depend on a library that Microsoft does not make sharable by multiple applications.


vos-d mailing list

Reply via email to