Re: Static or Shared MFC DLLs?
I'm not sure you'd even want to do this... if there are any routines that
changed in calling sequence, or the version of MFC on the machine is older
than what you need or a lot of reasons. A lot of people have turned to
static linking of MFC (since it is not very big in its smallest state) and
then you don't have to worry about it at all.
I have a program that is 400K EXE size, does quite a bit, has MFC statically
linked, and only uses standard (already installed) Windows DLLs. It's quite
convenient to install the single EXE to run. At least it is possible with
MFC.
Tom
"Paul" <pmlonline@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d095b72-e758-43be-accc-4c6200bd3ca9@r37g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 4, 6:27 pm, Ajay <ajayka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 4, 5:50 pm, Paul <pmlonl...@gmail.com> wrote:
My relative uses
VS9 in his app, and it does not require any of those or any *90*.dll
files. Also, his app has a ton of features and it's only 1.69MB.
How do you know the dependencies of that module9s)?. Is it static link/
dynamic link w/MFC?. There is no magic in this. You will somehow need
to pull in the functionality from MFC dlls.
I used Dependency Viewer app, which shows everything inside the exe.
Isn't there a way of making the exe file just use the newest version
of mfc*.dll on the computer?
Paul