Venting: Don't rename debug libraries
Proprietary vendors seem to think that renaming their debug binaries differently helps with automating linking against them. It doesn't.
Let's say we have libHERP and libHERPd. Obviously, we can search for for the "d" suffix when we're in debug mode. And all is well. Right? No. You have to do this for every project. That might sound like an easy task but when you have a hundred projects within a code base, all with individual building rules, try having two different lists of links in every frickin' project.
Instead, simply make two folders, put the release and debug binaries in two separate folders, and you can then include the two linker directories globally, conditionally based on debug or release modes. When you link, simply link one name instead of two. Congratulations. You just cut down on 200 lines in your build script.
Let's say we have libHERP and libHERPd. Obviously, we can search for for the "d" suffix when we're in debug mode. And all is well. Right? No. You have to do this for every project. That might sound like an easy task but when you have a hundred projects within a code base, all with individual building rules, try having two different lists of links in every frickin' project.
Instead, simply make two folders, put the release and debug binaries in two separate folders, and you can then include the two linker directories globally, conditionally based on debug or release modes. When you link, simply link one name instead of two. Congratulations. You just cut down on 200 lines in your build script.
There are some advantages to using the "d" suffix (and "s" for static) though. For example, what if one of the debug libraries accidentally got put into the release folder, or vice versa. Or slightly more likely, you start only building with one build target and put those libraries in your project folder. You then decide to change and do the other build target, it is now relatively easy to mix up release and debug and once you've mixed them up, you won't be able to tell them apart. It's also easier when you're linking in an IDE (it sounds like you're linking on the command line) to differentiate the files for the IDE without giving the path to each library individually and you can check at a glance that you aren't mixing the libraries up.
The chance of putting a debug library in the release folder is just as likely as forgetting to add the d suffix.
Except for the fact that the OS usually won't let you put two files with the same name in the same folder and in my experience when you have the suffixes, the libraries come in the same folder. But my main point is that when you're linking in a IDE it's more convenient for the names to be different and all the libraries to be in the same folder.
I don't see how. You would have just as much trouble adding two library directories as you would linking against two differently named libraries.
This is probably because I've never thought of putting search directories that are unique to build targets, only library names. I still prefer having the name of a library to say both what the library is (lib name) and what type of library it is (debug/release, static/dynamic) etc, but that's really just personal preference.
| shadowmouse wrote: |
|---|
| Except for the fact that the OS usually won't let you put two files with the same name in the same folder |
| Try having two different lists of links in every frickin' project. |
Can't you achieve the same effect of just having to specify a directory, by just specifying a suffix?
Its worse on Windows. You wind up with a directory full of unwieldly-named things.
@LB, what I meant was, if you have all your libraries in the same folder, it won't let you put one in there if you've missed the suffix, because you'll end up with two libraries with the same name in the same folder. It was a response to you saying that the chance of missing a suffix was equal to the chance of putting a library in the wrong folder (though I'll admit it wasn't the best of arguments against the OP's point).
Last edited on
In my experience, in that situation the original file will be overwritten without even a log message to note it. After all, rebuilding binaries is a pretty common thing.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.