Re: A problem about static object in DLL
Alex Blekhman wrote:
"Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" wrote:
It is a small added value, but it is not zero, nonetheless.
Which of those benefits don't you get from static libraries,
without any of the risk?
For example, reduced build time. Also, if something within a DLL
is changed, then no need to rebuild the whole project.
No difference between static libraries and DLLs here. If the public header
changed, you must rebuild the client. If not, no need to recompile the
client, just relink. The relink step does take place for both static and
dynamic library, the question is when... build time or run-time.
Unless by reduced build time, you mean only "check that it built with no
errors", and not a precursor to running the output, in which case the DLL
could be a little quicker. But when the public header changes, you then
have to run the linker twice, and the difference isn't that much anyway.
Of course using "Whole Program Optimization" changes the equation a lot, but
you can't achieve that at all with DLLs.
Let's start with "compatibility between compiler versions".
Ah, you mean this. I have always stated that a DLL that exports
C++ classes is no different from a static library in that respect.
Alex