This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: PATCH: allow PE executables to have an export table

The short answer...
It is a "feature" that grew out of "old world" sales and marketing plans.
It can be a technical convience in some cases, but that isn't where it came 

On Tuesday 17 December 2002 07:01 pm, Ralf Habacker wrote:
> allow me one question: for which cases should this be good ?
You write one "main (major)" application that one is priced very low or is
a "give away".  It "appears" as a "static linked" application without any
supporting, shared libraries that could be re-used.

You write one or more "add-ons", extra cost, utility programs or an "enhanced"
version of the program.  
Again, no shared library comes with this version.
In addition, this version is not complete... It will not load and run by its 
self - you must have the "free-bee" also.
It is the exports of the "free-bee" that are taking the place of a shared 

> The advantage is that an application(1)
 could be linked to another
> application(2) or dll(3), but makes this sense ?
Depends on your marketing plan.

> I assume the windows runtime linker could not load the application (1),
> because it does not contain the structure and the startup code, dll's
> usually have.
Yup - that is why systems that build these things have "import libraries".
It is the "import library" that supplies the glue to make the exports of the 
first program usable as an external, shared library.

> Regards
> Ralf

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]