On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 09:19:07PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 9:01 PM > > > > > Just a footnote... what is in misc/ could just as easily live in a > > > helpers or > > > build directory, it's nothing but an empty stub to eliminate compiler > > > emits. > > > > Okay, now I'm confused. That is a file with nothing but a comment in > > it???? Care to explain what it does and why it is there? > > I'll do so for everyone's benefit. MS won't cooperate with building a .dll > from > nothing but a .lib ... that is, unless you pass it an .obj file, any .obj > file, > even an empty one. > > Absurd, but that's what we have. > > I'm actually contemplating building both the .lib and .dll as two full > compiles. > The benefit, when called for, is that users of the .lib won't have dangling > exported symbols. I refused so far because we have two file lists to > maintain. > I'm thinking about a system to auto-generate the entire .dsp as appropriate, > meaning we don't lug around extra cruft. > > If we build the .lib and .dll forms as seperate, full compiles, then this > issue > of the nothing file goes away.
Why are we using two different .dsp files for this? You should be able to set up the four types of compiles within the single .dsp: 1) Release DLL 2) Debug DLL 3) Release LIB 4) Debug LIB Aren't the LIB/DLL differences just in the link line? Feed them a bunch of objects and link them as a LIB or as a DLL. In this scenario, there would be just a single file list, and you would have a bunch of .obj files to feed the LIB link (rather than needing an empty stub file). The files are compiled different for release vs debug; are they also *compiled* differently for DLL vs LIB? Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
