flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Windows > "Using Windows DLLs is a bad idea"

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
denial



Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 98
denial
Hello,

as every FASM application I've seen so far, I use the library macro to load Windows-API functions from the Windows DLLs.
Now I came across a C++ board where some "experts" said, that linking the Windows API is a bad idea because some systems won't run the application anymore, and the API functions should be loaded linked directly into EXE through a static library.

I doubt that it is true, because every Windows System should have the API DLLs included. So can I still write Windows applications in FASM as I did before, or do I have to fear that some systems won't run the application?

What do you think about their statement?
Thank you
Post 14 Jun 2005, 15:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
where have you seen THAT ?!?!?

What they mean by "linking" maybe they meant linking by LoadLibrary vs. imports? Please post link
Post 14 Jun 2005, 17:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
senolc_eht



Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 57
Location: Indonesia
senolc_eht
hi Denial

I do not know what you mean about some systems (are you mean linux, mac, or other version of Windows?), in my short experience using Fasm(about a half year), all my application run in windows 98 environment (and if doesn't run in windows xp or other version of windows i guest just need some adjustment). And i never think my windows application can run on linux or mac, i mean i make the application not for linux or mac environment.

for me there no need to fear. (cause from my experience there no application run on all system)

i'm sorry if what i thinking about some system is defferent from your thinking.

my regard
Senolc_eht

ps. I make my application in windows 98 environment
Post 14 Jun 2005, 17:43
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
denial



Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 98
denial
Of course I talk of windows systems Wink I mean different editions like XP, ME, 9x. Sorry if this wasn't clear.
With static linking I rather mean the usage of *.lib files. Or to say it more clearly: Just link the functions you use directly into the exe. So a runtime-access through a DLL is not needed. BUT: I can just say what THEY said!!

I've already tested what they said. And I have to say that my FASM applications worked in XP and Win 9x.

@vid: It was somewhere in a German web-archive.
Post 14 Jun 2005, 17:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
senolc_eht



Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Posts: 57
Location: Indonesia
senolc_eht
Smile so if you never find an problem, what you fear of..?
and i never listening some thing that make me stop my learning, working or my faith.

my regard
Senolc_eht
Post 14 Jun 2005, 18:11
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
xanatose



Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 57
xanatose
If i am not mistaken, the macro will add an import section to your program and windows will fill the information at run-time. This is exactly the same that an import library.

The only exception is when the import library also have some global data that its not on the DLL but on the library. The only library I have found that does is the one for dinput8.dll. inside dinput8.lib there are some GUIDS and globals needed for use.

However this will likely make you have an error on compile time and not in run time. Unless the functions you are calling are not in the version of windows. But in this case linking with the libraries will not help you.

Maybe the C++ expert was taking about the C/C++ runtime, or other libraries that have a static equivalent. The information does not apply to import libraries that have no static library equivalent.
Post 16 Jun 2005, 00:07
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Doesn't sound like those people were 'experts' Smile

If what you're talking about is linking with "user32.lib", "kernel32.lib" (etc.) instead of GetProcAddress, well, realize that those libraries are import libraries, and still end up using the DLLs. LoadLibrary+GetProcAddress should only be used if you need to use some API function only if it's available (for example layered window stuff to get transparent windows on 2k/xp), or if you're designing a plugin system.

If it's the .lib files versus fasm's "import" stuff, well, they are just two different ways of doing basically the same thing.
Post 19 Jun 2005, 12:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
denial



Joined: 12 Sep 2004
Posts: 98
denial
Thank you for your answers
Post 19 Jun 2005, 18:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.