| 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 <2021> 2022 2023 2024 | Index | 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 <2021> 2022 2023 2024 |
| <== Date ==> | <== Thread ==> |
|---|
| Subject: | RE: Problem building ezcaIDL on Windows |
| From: | Mark Rivers via Core-talk <core-talk at aps.anl.gov> |
| To: | 'Ralph Lange' <ralph.lange at gmx.de> |
| Cc: | EPICS core-talk <core-talk at aps.anl.gov> |
| Date: | Thu, 17 Jun 2021 22:45:24 +0000 |
|
Ø
Just be aware of and careful about the dynamic and static variants of Windows builds additionally setting other compiler flags differently. Mixing object code that has been produced with different flags may create unwanted bad
side effects. I.e., you shouldn't put object code from a dynamic build into a static library and vice versa. That is an interesting point. It is actually how that DLL has been built for many years. It is convenient, because Com, ca, ezca, and EzcaScan are statically built into ezcaIDL.dll. That DLL thus stands alone, and one does not need all
the other DLLs. Depending on other DLLs can lead to a real mess with PATH. With applications (.exe files) I believe that Windows will look first for DLLs in the same folder as the .exe. But for a run-time loadable DLL like ezcIDL.dll that does not seem
to be the case. The mixed-mode has worked fine for many years. What are the types of problems people have seen when doing that? Mark From: Core-talk <core-talk-bounces at aps.anl.gov>
On Behalf Of Ralph Lange via Core-talk On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 22:03, Mark Rivers via Core-talk <core-talk at aps.anl.gov> wrote:
Just be aware of and careful about the dynamic and static variants of Windows builds additionally setting other compiler flags differently. Mixing object code that has been produced with different flags may create unwanted bad side effects.
I.e., you shouldn't put object code from a dynamic build into a static library and vice versa. (Disclaimer: I did not follow the thread closely, so this specific use case may be doing things right.) Cheers, |