coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Garrett Serack <garretts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And this is what I get for travelling ... :D

Certainly CoApp supports the use of static libraries; and there is really only a small set of really valuable reasons one might want to use static code.

The top of that list, is PGO (Profile Guided optimization) ... by allowing the compiler/linker the opportunity to inline, rewrite and reorder code, you could squeeze out orders of magnitude better performance in a particular EXE.

I'm not saying that I encourage it, but I still see the purpose.

We are definitly recommeding that developers go with shared libraries as much as possible. This offers the best possible experience for the end user.

G
________________________________________
From: coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Olaf van der Spek [olafvdspek@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 8:10 AM
To: Trevor Dennis
Cc: coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Coapp-developers] use of static libs permitted?

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Trevor Dennis <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> One of the main goals of the CoApp project though is to reduce code
> duplication.
> For example, we want to get down to only one copy of ZLIB.DLL on a computer
> with all applications using that single copy.  If projects start statically
> linking those libraries in, we lose the main benefit of CoApp.

Obviously static linking isn't meant for CoApp packages. It's meant
for software distributed without CoApp.

Olaf

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
Post to     : coapp-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp