Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #5135
| From | Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> |
|---|---|
| Organization | Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Date | 2011-05-18 12:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2011051812384823389-pete@versatilecodingcom> (permalink) |
| References | <e557f572-1a34-4a96-aad9-ffd1241a71be@c41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <4dd3e656$0$38645$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> |
| Subject | Re: Customize operator new / delete |
On 2011-05-18 11:32:43 -0400, io_x said: > > if you have 10000 C++ programs tha use the same routines > could be good to have put all these routine in a .dll > so one not have to load always the same code > but it is load only one time, and so the space of memory > where these routine are written- it is only one place > > only static .data of the set of to these routines > should be in each process out of the .dll > at last at what i belive to have understood Yes, that's the theory. In practice, even Microsoft refers to this as "DLL hell". A typical system ends up with multiple, perhaps inconsistent, versions of various DLLs and often there's no good way of knowing which version will be selected for a particular application. The result is that your application may or may not work right, depending on which version of each of its DLLs gets loaded. Unless, of course, your application supplies its own version of every DLL that it uses. -- Pete Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference (www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Customize operator new / delete Nephi Immortal <immortalnephi@gmail.com> - 2011-05-07 19:11 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-08 15:05 +1200
Re: Customize operator new / delete James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-05-08 07:38 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-08 19:05 +0200
Re: Customize operator new / delete Nephi Immortal <immortalnephi@gmail.com> - 2011-05-08 15:35 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-09 10:45 +1200
Re: Customize operator new / delete James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-05-10 13:25 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-11 09:31 +0200
Re: Customize operator new / delete "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-11 09:56 +0200
Re: Customize operator new / delete James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-05-15 06:14 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-15 23:54 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-16 19:43 +1200
Re: Customize operator new / delete Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-16 12:53 +0100
Re: Customize operator new / delete "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-18 17:32 +0200
Re: Customize operator new / delete Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-05-18 12:38 -0400
Re: Customize operator new / delete James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-05-15 06:12 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-08 18:44 +0200
Re: Customize operator new / delete Nephi Immortal <immortalnephi@gmail.com> - 2011-05-08 15:43 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-09 08:47 +0200
Re: Customize operator new / delete Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-09 12:58 +0100
Re: Customize operator new / delete "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-10 08:15 +0200
Re: Customize operator new / delete Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-10 12:39 +0100
Re: Customize operator new / delete James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-05-10 13:29 -0700
csiph-web