And you consider it as a valid solution ?
What if I wanted to write some C extensions,
mainly to deal with so called "worker threads" ?
Or I would like to use 3-rd party dll which
uses malloc() internally ?
Come on. Be serious. You are a programmer.
I'm not sure I've understood the meaning of "worker threads", but I
think I've found the main idea of malloc(), free() solution: memory
should be allocated and freed using the same library. Dll and main
exe can have separate memory heaps.
Perhaps you did not use dynamic CRTL with those dlls in Borland.
Yes, usually I use static linking. But... do you know any popular
library project with different binary distributions for MinGW, MSVC,
BCC? Somehow zlib, Advantage Database server, MySQL, Firebird, etc
is able to by pass this problem. Or am I wrong? I see Harbour the
first one with separate .dlls. Maybe it's because of its nature -
virtual machine inside .dll, maybe we should compare ourself JavaVM,
or .NET... But I'm not sure if it's unsolvable problem. I'm not
saying it should be done today, or before 1.0 Final.
Definitely not before 1.0.0 (if ever), but I was wondering about
the exact same thing. I cannot yet grasp why harbour.dll is different,
I can accept it is, but I still don't see it clearly why.
Also other programming languages:
- python25.dll (using msvcr71.dll)
- php5ts.dll (using msvcrt.dll)
Maybe these also have some documented restrictions on the supported
compilers for apps wanting to interface with them, I don't know.
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
