Re: [xml] Win32 Debug/Release versions


100% agreed with Igor. We do not need two DLLs.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Igor Zlatkovic" <izlatkovic daenet de>
To: <xml gnome org>
Sent: quinta-feira, 12 de julho de 2001 10:53
Subject: RE: [xml] Win32 Debug/Release versions

Hi there.

Does anyone else use a "d" suffix on DLL and lib files to distinguish
between debug and release versions (i.e. libxml.dll and 
libxmld.dll)?  I've
altered my copies of libxml2 and libxslt to do this.  As per the LGPL
licensing agreement I'd like to return these alterations to 
the code base
(if anyone else wants them).

When you use the Visual Studio Wizard to create the project file, it
does this suffixing automatically. This suffix is not in the libxml
project file because I removed it manually. Why for heaven's sake did I
do that?

You see, I don't have a wish to debug MS C-runtime, neither I wish to
install a debug version of the C-runtime on every target computer. For
this reason, the project file says to link with the non-debug version of
the C-runtime, no matter if you are building a debug or a release
version of libxml2. This way, programs based on libxml2 that contain
debug symbols run on all machines, not just on those which have Win32
SDK installed.

I am more happy with the debug version having the same name as the
release version. Here, I have even set it up so that object files and
the resulting library end up in the same directory no matter if you
compile with debugging symbols or not, just like things fare under UNIX.
No more 'debug_so' and 'release_so', just 'obj' or similar. Because all
executables are linked with the same C-runtime, they run everywhere and
can be linked with each other, regardless if they contain debug symbols
or not. This makes it easier to manage large project trees which contain
several dozen libraries and executables, for example, writing scripts
which automate things is easier. After all, we all work with debug
versions all the time until we are ready to ship a release and in that
case we rebuild everything anyway (I mean those of us who distribute
binaries). As the last thing to mention, this approach uses only half
the disc space because object files and executables are stored on the
disc only once. 

However, I do not wish to enforce my views on anyone. If you guys out
there want debug and release executables separated, and that stored
under different names, well, so be it.


xml mailing list
xml gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]