W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-lib@w3.org > January to March 1999

RE: Help building static libraries for MSVC

From: Vladimir Kozlov <Vladimir.Kozlov@idm.ru>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:18:47 +0300
Message-ID: <6174667DA154D211BA2D00A0C9292CCB015AFF@E0-IDM.r.miee.ru>
To: frystyk@w3.org
Cc: swalch@cisoft.com, www-lib@w3.org
Henrik,

In my opinion, it is much more useful to have a number of small DLLs
instead of a big one. But, if I'm not mistaken, the problem is that a
number of static LIBs are not a static ones.
I've never try to build static set of libraries, but Stephen's attempts
were unsuccessful:

-<snip>-
It does generate .LIB files, but these are still import libraries and
the
actual code is still in .DLL files.

Perhaps I am just doing something stupid.  I will keep trying.

(I know that cygwin is an alternative, but I would rather avoid that for
awhile yet as the rest of my project is in MSVC.)

- Stephen Walch
swalch@cisoft.com
-<snip>-

Unfortunately, I could not help - the same happens when I try to build
static libraries...
By the way, I think that it will be good to keep possibility to compile
using MSVC as well.

Kind regards,

Vladimir.

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:frystyk@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 12:14 AM
To: www-lib@w3.org; Vladimir Kozlov
Subject: Re: Help building static libraries for MSVC




Vladimir Kozlov wrote:
> 
> But it should build .LIBs as well, doesn't it?

Alternatively we could change the current setup to generate one big
libwww DLL instead of a large set of small ones. When I compile within
cygwin, this is in fact what happens and it makes it easier to generate
one big static library as well.

What do you prefer?

Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 1999 02:18:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2007 18:18:28 GMT