Board index » cppbuilder » Linker Hotfix

2008-06-20 04:34:37 AM
cppbuilder25
CodeGear has issued a hotfix for a number of linker issues:
<cc.codegear.com/item/25694>
--
David Dean (CodeGear)
Lead C++ QA Engineer
 

"David Dean [CodeGear]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
know there is a third-party add-on floating around that makes the IDE call
the .exe version of the linker instead of the .dll version, but can that be
avoided?
Gambit
 

Don't know the answer to your question, but I do note that the download
itself is listed as only available to CBuilder Developers of 2007 products, so
apparently you only have a shot at trying it with earlier products if you've
got the newer product registered.
"Remy Lebeau (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message

{smallsort}

Remy Lebeau (TeamB) wrote:
Worth mentioning that the hotfix addresses a serious performance issue
with the previous version of linker, so it's worth installing even if
the linker never gives you any trouble.
- Roddy
 

In article <485ac81d$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Remy Lebeau \(TeamB\)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
compilers, but we've never really supported it and we don't provide the
new linker to customers unless they are registered as having the new
compiler. We also no longer provide the linker in .dll form. The chances
of this working well are getting much slimmer.
--
David Dean (CodeGear)
Lead C++ QA Engineer
 

this would work with BCB2006?
 

David Perkins wrote:
ilink32.exe in the BDS\Bin directory with the new ilink32.
HTH
Jon
 

Hello,
tried to make static link of my big program (was impossible before), QC#
52501.
It links now but the exe faults with access violation during initialisation
of one of my DLLs which normally works ok.
Everything is not perfect yet.
Pavel
"David Dean [CodeGear]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >píše v diskusním
pøíspìvku news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

Maybe you need to rename some portion of the path to the buildtree... :)
Might be at least an amusing experiment...
We've found with bds2006 that avoids results similar to yours, for us. Of
course, exactly what to rename it to is not currently deterministic (I think
we've found both lengthening, and shortening, the name has helped, in
various situations. And we don't know if its the lengthening, or
shortening, or that we may use an entirely different name for some portion
of the path.)
"PavelS" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message