Re: The application has failed to start because its side-by-side configuration is incorrect
- From: "David Ching" <dc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:48:26 GMT
"jklioe" <ranu2006@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5ecc0b10-7727-466f-802b-98febdcb907a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks I was able to solve my problem...
I had linked dyanamically to MFC , I changed this to statically linked
and it worked out ....
which is the right way to link MFC libraries statically or
dynamically ?
It's a question bordering on religious.
Static linking
Pros - no other dll's required, DLL-hell eliminated, everything needed to
run your app is included in .exe
Cons - .exe becomes (somewhat) bigger in size, C RTL/MFC code that could
be factored out into dll's is statically linked into each module of your
app, C RTL/MFC code can't be serviced with MS Updates/hot fixes, must ensure
target OS has DLL's compatible with C RTL, e.g. for OLE.
For my usage, static linking is all plus. The cons don't bother me at all.
-- David
.
- References:
- The application has failed to start because its side-by-side configuration is incorrect
- From: jklioe
- Re: The application has failed to start because its side-by-side configuration is incorrect
- From: Doug Harrison [MVP]
- Re: The application has failed to start because its side-by-side configuration is incorrect
- From: jklioe
- The application has failed to start because its side-by-side configuration is incorrect
- Prev by Date: Re: Mouse move on parent window and child window
- Next by Date: Re: How useful is GUI Scripting?
- Previous by thread: Re: The application has failed to start because its side-by-side configuration is incorrect
- Next by thread: Re: The application has failed to start because its side-by-side configuration is incorrect
- Index(es):