Hi Marek,
AFAIK MSVCRT.DLL is a system CRTL. Normally it is
not used by MSVC, until you explicitly build your
exe against it. MSVC uses its own CRTL (although I
may be wrong here).
Did you use libcurl with Borland harbour.dll compiled
to use Borland dynamic CRTL ? I wonder if it really
works.
I don't use harbour.dll at all (never exactly understood
its details and benefits), but since I've built all
binaries for Windows, I was wondering why are we having
to differently named ones, a practice which I haven't
seen in any other projects before.
Answering to your question, I'm not sure if I'd want to
use Borland dynamic C RTL. Why is it better than using
the static one? And back to the first one, what is the
benefit of harbour-*.dll? (no pun intented, I'm really
interested, and I don't want to remove it either.)
[ The issue so far:
1) C calling convention differences (solvable)
2) name mangling differences (solvable)
3) C RTL interaction and dependency
Multiple issues, the exact specifics are not exactly clear
to me yet. ]
So please don't force anything based on your (not real
life) experience with dlls. Current aproach is a good
balance between "dll hell" and a "real life" requirements.
Who forces what? I was raising a potential issue/question
and we're discussing it, hopefully everybody will learn
something, but surely nobody loses anything.
I don't see any issue except the one which
will come if we follow your proposition. It
does not solve anything and will block some
possible scenarious.
I was asking question to have a clearer picture
about this "issue", let's call it topic.
Final word, yeah: Regardless of any moves made out
this discussion I think it's very important to discuss
why Harbour has harbour-b32.dll and harbour-vc.dll, when
and why should one use any one of them. These questions
are nowhere documented, and very much unclear for me
(and probably for other users downloading binaries, too),
so they would raise anyway as soon as someone would try
to use any harbour.dll at all.
The problem with "final word" is that you do not
want to listen to any resonable arguments. Even
those based on technical details.
I have no doubt that you know what you're talking
about, but it's really difficult to discuss even a
technical thing when you consider a mere question
an attack. I'd prefer to read more on the technical
details rather.
If this is a tabu issue in some sorts of ways, let's move on.
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
