Prev: One-stop learning web-site?
Next: Are For loops macros possible?
From: Squeezy99 on 28 Feb 2010 06:25
Hi,

I am running XP 64 and have been cleaning out some old software etc. I have
many (8) different C++ redistributables listed - do I need all these or
should a new version clean out the old when installed?
Thanks in advance,
Dave


From: Tim Roberts on 28 Feb 2010 20:46
"Squeezy99" <david.cunningham(a)free.fr> wrote:
>
>I am running XP 64 and have been cleaning out some old software etc. I have
>many (8) different C++ redistributables listed - do I need all these or
>should a new version clean out the old when installed?

As with many things, it depends. If you always rebuild your applications
with the newest compiler, then you don't need the older redistributables.
However, many people want the ability to recompile their old apps and then
release them with the original redistributables.
--
Tim Roberts, timr(a)probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
From: Squeezy99 on 1 Mar 2010 11:03

"Tim Roberts" <timr(a)probo.com> wrote in message
news:p07mo55kidkjomknqujhplbnka12eo5tos(a)4ax.com...
> "Squeezy99" <david.cunningham(a)free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>I am running XP 64 and have been cleaning out some old software etc. I
>>have
>>many (8) different C++ redistributables listed - do I need all these or
>>should a new version clean out the old when installed?
>
> As with many things, it depends. If you always rebuild your applications
> with the newest compiler, then you don't need the older redistributables.
> However, many people want the ability to recompile their old apps and then
> release them with the original redistributables.
> --
> Tim Roberts, timr(a)probo.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Thanks for the reply.
So a later version of the redist. does not replace an older version, they
are not 'backwards compatible'.

Regards,
Dave


From: Tim Roberts on 3 Mar 2010 00:34
"Squeezy99" <david.cunningham(a)free.fr> wrote:
>
>So a later version of the redist. does not replace an older version, they
>are not 'backwards compatible'.

Well, again, the answer is complicated. It would be extremely rare for an
upgrade of a run-time library to make a breaking change. However, thanks
to manifests, unless you take steps to provide otherwise, C executables now
tend to be tightly coupled to one particular version of the run-time
library. Not because they NEED to, but because that's what the default
configuration provides.

Microsoft aims the releases at companys who "certify" their applications
with a particular CRT version, and do not want automatic updates.
--
Tim Roberts, timr(a)probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: One-stop learning web-site?
Next: Are For loops macros possible?