adpcore.lib Required Runtime Library binding

adpcore.lib Required Runtime Library binding

Will there ever be any plans to have a core authorization library that does not link with the standard runtime libraries? I have a lot of very small plug-in type code module dll's that are optimized in a framework and it would be nice to not drag in anything not absolutely necessary. I suppose I can just isolate the core library to a single dll with this binding requirement and keep the rest the same but thought I would ask. Thanks Brett
5 posts / 0 new
Last post
For more complete information about compiler optimizations, see our Optimization Notice.

Hello Brett,

the SDK is still in development and we try to consider the requests of the community as much as possible for future SDK versions.

Best Regards,

Andre B.

Intel® Atom™ Developer Program

I often prefer statically linking my applications to ensure their behaviour remains unchanged, and makes it easier on the end user who is spared the task of hunting around for the extra system files they need to run the application. In my recent submission, I have had to change this long-standing way in which I work and force my project to use 'MFC in a Shared DLL' as opposed to my preference which is 'MFC in a Static Library'. I would also like to put forward the request to have your library not dependent on external system files, and either be a self contained DLL which I can easily incorporate into my static builds (load the DLL at runtime) or provide static libraries so I can build with the 'MFC in a Static Library' option.


I would like to add that my understanding is that a statically linked runtime ensures the stability of the core library and adds an extra layer of security in the process.

Well, Brian, I'm all for security in the api for the purposes of authenticating and if the only real way to do this is a static library then so be it. I would think that in order to satisfy the various ways that developers create their apps that Intel could create a very lightweight and neutral static library that we can link with that doesn't have all these dependencies just to authenticate. I think a balance could be struck with a static library that does indirect "magic" to communicate with additional dlls that can bind with all of these dependencies and runtimes as required and needed as the api matures.

There is still a following out here in developer land where SIB (small is beautiful) still holds appeal and I for one don't like to link in half the world into my binaries if I can help it. Just asking for a little flexibility from the api lords is all.


Leave a Comment

Please sign in to add a comment. Not a member? Join today