Codejock Developer Community : Why is dynamic static build lib so big? http://forum.codejock.com/ Copyright (c) 2006-2013 Web Wiz Forums - All Rights Reserved. Wed, 22 Apr 2026 05:56:55 +0000 Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:06:23 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 12.04 360 forum.codejock.com/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=2485 <![CDATA[Codejock Developer Community]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_images/codejock-logo.gif http://forum.codejock.com/ <![CDATA[Why is dynamic static build lib so big? : jeffcmj, Barto you was right,...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=8750&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#8750 Author: Oleg
Subject: 2485
Posted: 26 September 2005 at 7:06am

jeffcmj, Barto you was right, it was our bug with exporting symbols.

Was fixed for 9.80

]]> Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:06:23 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=8750&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#8750 <![CDATA[Why is dynamic static build lib so big? : I noticed there seems to be a...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=8678&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#8678 Author: Barto
Subject: 2485
Posted: 19 September 2005 at 12:31pm

I noticed there seems to be a bug in 9.70 regarding the #defines XT_STATICLINK and _XT_STATICLINK.

So every time I compile my app with static XTP, it also generates an .exp and .lib file and of course all the XTP symbols are there by name in the .exe for exporting... This probably explains the bigger size.

I hope Codejock fixes this problem for the next release, it's a bit annoying..

]]> Mon, 19 Sep 2005 12:31:20 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=8678&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#8678 <![CDATA[Why is dynamic static build lib so big? : The size went up drastically with...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=8673&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#8673 Author: PeterP
Subject: 2485
Posted: 18 September 2005 at 9:40pm

The size went up drastically with version 9.70.

My release build executable using dynStatic library increased in size by over 700k just by changing from v9.601 to v9.70.

This seems out of proportion to the features added.

]]> Sun, 18 Sep 2005 21:40:50 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=8673&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#8673 <![CDATA[Why is dynamic static build lib so big? : Sorry to bump. The result I got...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=8668&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#8668 Author: jeffcmj
Subject: 2485
Posted: 17 September 2005 at 9:31pm

Sorry to bump.

The result I got with same application:

1. Compile with shared MFC lib 1328KB
2. Compile with static linked MFC lib 1300KB.

It's more strange that share MFC link even larger than static link.

]]> Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:31:08 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=8668&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#8668 <![CDATA[Why is dynamic static build lib so big? : Hello, Compare result exectables....]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=7471&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#7471 Author: Oleg
Subject: 2485
Posted: 05 July 2005 at 6:17am

Hello,

Compare result exectables. Lib files contain a lot of internal links/symbols.

]]> Tue, 05 Jul 2005 06:17:18 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=7471&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#7471 <![CDATA[Why is dynamic static build lib so big? : no. I used the default deploy...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=7460&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#7460 Author: jeffcmj
Subject: 2485
Posted: 04 July 2005 at 9:54pm

no. I used the default deploy wizard to compile. Doesn't anyone notice this ?]]> Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:54:28 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=7460&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#7460 <![CDATA[Why is dynamic static build lib so big? : Areyou using whole program optimization...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=7394&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#7394 Author: srana
Subject: 2485
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 7:07am

Are you using whole program optimization ?]]> Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:07:47 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=7394&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#7394 <![CDATA[Why is dynamic static build lib so big? : It&#039;s over 22M while static...]]> http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=7390&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#7390 Author: jeffcmj
Subject: 2485
Posted: 30 June 2005 at 11:20pm

It's over 22M while static build is just 9M. I though the dynStatic build come without MFC dll, which shall make it smaller. If it's even bigger than I static link with MFC dll, there is no reason to use it.

Did I build in a wrong way or there is something wrong with the toolkit?

]]> Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:20:37 +0000 http://forum.codejock.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2485&PID=7390&title=why-is-dynamic-static-build-lib-so-big#7390