Re[2]: [lmi] synchronizing wx and lmi for production

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:45:34 -0500 Wendy Boutin <address@hidden> wrote:

WB> > I'm a bit
WB> > surprized that the library names produced by "manual" makefiles and 
autoconf-
WB> > generated ones are not the same though. Could you please confirm that this
WB> > is indeed the case, i.e. that the libraries are named differently in 
2.6.1?
WB> 
WB> I believe that's indeed the case. These are my results from using and a wx 
cvs
WB> checkout as of 2005-07-07:
WB> 
WB> built manually modifying setup.h and using cmd
WB> C:\downloads\wxWidgets\lib\gcc_dll>ls .
WB> libwxexpatd.a            libwxpngd.a              libwxzlibd.a
WB> libwxjpegd.a             libwxregexd.a            mswd
WB> libwxmsw26d.a            libwxtiffd.a             wxmsw26d_gcc_custom.dll
WB> 
WB> built with configure && make using msys:
WB> address@hidden /c/downloads/wxwidgets/build-msys/lib
WB> $ ls
WB> libwx_msw-2.6.dll.a  libwxpng-2.6.a    libwxzlib-2.6.a  
wxmsw26_gcc_custom.dll
WB> libwxexpat-2.6.a     libwxregex-2.6.a  wx

 At least the DLL name is still the same... But, of course, import library
name should normally also be the same I'd think. It's not a big problem but
I'll ask on wx-dev about it.

WB> Since lmi relies on the debug version, I've added the appropriate option.
WB> Is there a real benefit to using the "debug" version versus the "release"
WB> version. It seems as though the debug file is 625% bigger than the release
WB> one:
WB> 47957kb  wxmsw26d_gcc_custom.dll
WB>  7675kb  wxmsw26_gcc_custom.dll

 Yes, gcc produces huge executables with debug. But using it still makes
sense because in debug build you get many checks (asserts) which help you
to detect the situations when you use the library in an invalid way.

 In principle, it's possible to compile with __WXDEBUG__ defined (so that
you get asserts) but without -g and with -O but you'd need to manually set
up C[XX]FLAGS for this and IMHO it's not worth it.

 Regards,
VZ