Re: VC6 + Dinkumware fixes OK for basic STL usage?
"David Wilkinson" <no-reply@effisols.com> wrote in message
news:eEorUYvHHHA.960@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
P.J. Plauger wrote:
I haven't been to your site for a while, and hadn't seen this V-express
edition. But on the web site I don't see anything about using it with VC6
(though it's late and maybe I am missing it).
No, we kinda forgot to mention that part.
Is this V-express all in header files that I can just include ahead of
the existing standard library,
It's not all headers, but yes you do just include our headers ahead of
the existing ones, and link our binaries ahead of the existing ones.
That's the way we always package our libraries.
>>What about static/dynamic linking, or
doesn't it matter? FWIW I use static linking and have several projects
that I am maintaining in VC6, and this sounds great.
IIRC we only ship dynamically linked libraries, though you can indeed
build static libraries from the source.
PJ:
Thanks for the info.
Surely, the VC6 piece is important, you should mention it. One of the
criticisms always leveled at VC6 is the C++ library (though with the
patches it has always worked for my simple needs).
I assume that you can get the binaries for each of the compilers VC6,
VC7.1, VC8 ? (I don't care about VC7, not many do.)
IIRC, we include all these binaries in our $200 binary product. Not
sure, after all these months, what's in the V-express package. But
the headers certainly adapt to all compilers.
But what is in these binaries? When I got the VC6 patches, I noted a
warning on the site that there could be a problem with dynamic linking
because MSVCP60.DLL contained the unpatched versions. Since I use static
linking, I didn't worry about it, assuming that there were not
corresponding static libraries in the static linking case. Was this wrong?
No, that's correct. If you just patch the Microsoft-supplied headers,
you're still at the mercy of the DLLs and/or static libraries. For
some reason, Microsoft has never published a way to rebuild the DLLs
in the field. Since many of the bugs have been captured in DLL code,
you're outa luck.
In our case, we supply DLLs and binary libraries that supercede
Microsoft stuff, so we can supply fixed versions.
If binaries for static linking of V-express are required, why do you not
provide them?
They're not required. That's just one linking option.
And if I have to build them myself, where is the source to
build them from? In the VC distributions I see source for MFC and CRT, but
not for the C++ library.
You can license our source and build all sorts of configurations. But
the source is rather more expensive than the binaries. The idea behind
the V-express package was to give customers a cheap way to try out
our latest offering, including the most asked for part of TR1.
I guess I am a bit confused about these binaries :).
And I probably contributed a bit to the confusion.
P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com