Thread: Including DLL's

I was wondering if there was any way to include a .DLL file WITHOUT having to have the .DLL file in the same directory as the .EXE? Like, I want to have the .DLL inside of the .EXE so other users wont have to worry about having the .DLL on their computer to execute the .EXE. I hope I didnt confuse you. The LoadLibrary functions I found only work if the .DLL is in the same directory as the .EXE so please dont tell me how to load .DLLs with the LoadLibrary functions.

Thanks for any help. It is much appreciated.

Static linkage.

I'm sorry, but this is the first time I've heard of "static linkage". Would you mind explaining to me how I would include .DLL in a .EXE with this?

Originally Posted by Tonto

Static linkage.

Now that's a good one. From what i recall DLL stands for Dynamic Link Library. I guess that says it all doesn't it? DLL's are supposed to be linked dynamically not statically. Usually for static linking the extension in windows is .lib

Cheers

How do I convert a .DLL to a .LIB and then how do I include a .LIB? The .DLL file is libmySQL.DLL. I'm sorry, but I'm not very experienced with C++.

Thanks for the replies. Its appreciated.

Have you tried to use the DLL with the import lib which is created from your compiling the DLL? You'll have to include your header file and import lib when you're linking all your objects. Finally, the DLL must be in the PATH or the same directory as the executable. This approach eliminates the need to use LoadLibrary.

How do I convert a .DLL to a .LIB and then how do I include a .LIB? The .DLL file is libmySQL.DLL.

There's no way that i know of to convert a .DLL into a .LIB. Plus, is there any good reason for doing that? or are you just trying to hide the fact that you are using it?

the DLL must be in the PATH or the same directory as the executable

Thats what I'm trying to eliminate...

I want to make a program where you only need a .EXE and nothing else. I dont want other people who use this program to have to hassel with the .DLL (hassel = keeping the .DLL in the same directory).

I want to make a program where you only need a .EXE and nothing else. I dont want other people who use this program to have to hassel with the .DLL (hassel = keeping the .DLL in the same directory).

Hmmm, that's no hassle, you will have to distribute the application won't you? Simply distribute the .DLL with it. Don't take me wrong but to me it just looks like you are trying to hide the fact that you are using that library, for some obscure reason.

Originally Posted by LinuxCoder

Now that's a good one. From what i recall DLL stands for Dynamic Link Library. I guess that says it all doesn't it? DLL's are supposed to be linked dynamically not statically. Usually for static linking the extension in windows is .lib
Cheers

Some libraries come in both static and dynamic flavors so its not realy a stupid sugestion.

I agree that including dlls in your distribution isn't a big deal, put them all in one zip file. Or you can use one of those freeware installers.

Well of course now he's going to claim that he's doing what you said... I know bull........ters when I see them

I want to make a program where you only need a .EXE and nothing else. I dont want other people who use this program to have to hassel with the .DLL (hassel = keeping the .DLL in the same directory).

AFAIK, there is no way create a program that eliminates the DLL unless you have the source code to the DLL. You can recompile the DLL source code into a static library and link this library with your app at compile time thus eliminating the need for a DLL. Bottom line is you need the static lib version of this DLL since I know of no way to convert a binary DLL into a static lib.

Well of course now he's going to claim that he's doing what you said

It will lead to the same result, what i posted is not morally correct nor ethical, if it's even legal which i even think it's not.

Cheers