#1 Burning Software

Hi Anton,

Is there any reason why your Debug dynamic libraries shouldn't be shipped with our product, rather than the Release libraries?

Are the Release libraries faster or more stable?

The Debug libraries have the benefit of generating debug, but I can't see any benefit of the Release library!

Cheers,

Colin

p.s. We still haven't started the DVD+ tests yet. Hopefully this will be next week. Sorry for the delay.

Debug ones can generate logs and are a bit slower b/s of the log code processing and a bit larger b/s of the embedded log text. Release ones cannot generate logs and are a bit faster and smaller. So it's up to you to pick up the one you'd like

Good. Waiting for your feedback about DVD+R.

And I'd write down a message about memory and resource leaks right now. Looks like MS spoiled a bit

Thanks for that. We'll stay with the debug libraries, at it's likely to help problem diagnosis in the field.

Have a good weekend!

If you're using DLLs it would not a be a big problem to ask user to switch to debug RTL by just DLL swap. However for statically linked LIB it's a problem...

Thanks! You too

Hello again,

We're using the dynamic libraries, so switching technically wouldn't be a problem.

Historically though, I found this can cause a couple of problems. First, we'd need an additional QA cycle for the other DLL (more work - less play ), and secondly I've had problems before where process-driven customers aren't happy with different DLLs being uploaded onto their system (as it circumvents their internal QA cycles)!

I'm happy to stick with the debug version!

Btw, you're working late on a Friday night! It must be Saturday morning by now for you!!

C

Yup. Sounds like a solution.

Yes, I'm using 30-35 hours day-night cycle Earh one of 24 hours does not work for me very well.