|
Why is dynamic static build lib so big? |
Post Reply 
|
| Author | |
jeffcmj 
Groupie 
Joined: 28 October 2004 Status: Offline Points: 92 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Why is dynamic static build lib so big?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? |
|
 |
|
|
srana
Groupie
Joined: 15 May 2003 Location: India Status: Offline Points: 27 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 01 July 2005 at 7:07am |
|
Are you using whole program optimization ?
|
|
|
Shrishail Rana |
|
|
|
|
jeffcmj
Groupie
Joined: 28 October 2004 Status: Offline Points: 92 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 July 2005 at 9:54pm |
|
no. I used the default deploy wizard to compile. Doesn't anyone notice this ?
|
|
|
|
|
Oleg
Admin Group 
Joined: 21 May 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 11234 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 July 2005 at 6:17am |
|
Hello, Compare result exectables. Lib files contain a lot of internal links/symbols. |
|
|
Oleg, Support Team
CODEJOCK SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS |
|
|
|
|
jeffcmj
Groupie
Joined: 28 October 2004 Status: Offline Points: 92 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 17 September 2005 at 9:31pm |
|
Sorry to bump. The result I got with same application: 1. Compile with shared MFC lib 1328KB It's more strange that share MFC link even larger than static link. |
|
|
|
|
PeterP
Newbie 
Joined: 18 September 2005 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 3 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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. |
|
|
|
|
Barto
Groupie
Joined: 27 February 2005 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 60 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
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.. |
|
|
|
|
Oleg
Admin Group
Joined: 21 May 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 11234 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 September 2005 at 7:06am |
|
jeffcmj, Barto you was right, it was our bug with exporting symbols. Was fixed for 9.80 |
|
|
Oleg, Support Team
CODEJOCK SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options