NH> Does Linux use DLLs?

WM> Linux calls them "shared libraries", and their names end
in ".so"
WM> (plus a version number, usually); but the concept and function is
WM> the same.

If I were to build an application using shared libraries, what sorts of 
version problems would I run into if the application were to be 
distributed far and wide (presumably beyond my control)?

NH> What would _really_ be earth-shattering, IMO, is if I could
NH> dynamically link the standard library.

WM> Maybe you want to switch to Linux (or some Unix), then, since that's
WM> normal there. :-) The standard library goes by the name "libc". Your
WM> basic "Hello, world" executable is barely 3K.

I just compiled the following program:

#include 

int main(void)
{
 puts("hello, world");
 return 0;
}

This compiled to 80kb in debug mode and 24kb in release mode.  What 
would I need to do to the above file to compile it *nix so that it used 
a shared library?  I've always thought that bigger was better but now 
I'm not so sure.

WM> But I was under the impression that msvcrtXX.dll _was_ Microsoft
WM> Visual C's version of the standard library. (Dunno, I've never
WM> actually used MSVC.)

I searched around my system for "*msvcrt*" and got 13 hits, 12 of which 
were used by MS.  It seems to me that if this (these) file(s) contained 
stdlib, it would be misnamed (unless it also contained the code for 
stdio.

þ CMPQwk 1.42 999

--- Maximus/2 3.01