Replacing link.exe with new

Abhishek

unread,

Nov 5, 2012, 7:30:19 AM11/5/12

to

Hi,

I replaced VB6's link.exe with new from VS 2005 and VB complied the program
correctly.

i am wondering what is the benifit of doing it? can it give VB6 program some
extra features?

--
abhishek
http://vb6zone.blogspot.com

Deanna Earley

unread,

Nov 5, 2012, 8:48:02 AM11/5/12

to

On 05/11/2012 12:30, Abhishek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I replaced VB6's link.exe with new from VS 2005 and VB complied the program
> correctly.
>
> i am wondering what is the benifit of doing it? can it give VB6 program some
> extra features?

Not really. Most "new features" of the linker need an explicit option to
turn them on which the IDE won't support.

On top of this, most "features" come from code changes/compiled output
which is all part of C2.exe (Which is a modified x86 compiler specific
to VB6).

--
Deanna Earley (dee.e...@icode.co.uk)
i-Catcher Development Team
http://www.icode.co.uk/icatcher/

iCode Systems

(Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the
group.)

Mayayana

unread,

Nov 5, 2012, 10:17:36 AM11/5/12

to

You can customize the compile by stepping into the
process to control the kinds of options that you see
in the VC compile options window. See this Ron
Petrushka article about creating VB DLLs for info:

http://www.windowsdevcenter.com/pub/a/windows/2005/04/26/create_dll.html

I don't know how much trouble it's all worth. While
VB hides access to many compile options, I've never
heard of anything (other than the option to make
a standard DLL) that justifies fiddling with those
switches.

MikeD

unread,

Nov 5, 2012, 5:57:25 PM11/5/12

to

"Abhishek" <abhish...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k78bgs$c9a$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Hi,
>
> I replaced VB6's link.exe with new from VS 2005 and VB complied the
> program
> correctly.
>
> i am wondering what is the benifit of doing it? can it give VB6 program
> some
> extra features?
>

I'm curious as to why you'd do that if you don't know what the benefits
could be (and presumably don't what what the dangers could be either). You
DID back up the file first, right? :)

Mike

Karl E. Peterson

unread,

Nov 5, 2012, 6:06:21 PM11/5/12

to

Mayayana formulated the question :

The /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch is useful...
http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2010/03/22/easing-the-data-cramp.aspx

--
.NET: It's About Trust!
http://vfred.mvps.org

Mayayana

unread,

Nov 5, 2012, 7:17:13 PM11/5/12

to

|
| The /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch is useful...
|
http://visualstudiomagazine.com/articles/2010/03/22/easing-the-data-cramp.aspx
|

"Hi, my name is Karl, and I, uh, like Windows 7."

So that's where Windows Anonymous meets. :)

Larry Serflaten

unread,

Nov 5, 2012, 9:43:53 PM11/5/12

to

Karl E. Peterson wrote:

> > http://www.windowsdevcenter.com/pub/a/windows/2005/04/26/create_dll.html

I noticed your illustrations show you are using a 20 GB page file for your 10 GB of memory. Some time ago (7-9 mos?) I read a TechEd article on how Windows manages memory, relating what is meant by cached, available, free, paged, non-paged, etc. In that article was a discussion of appropreate page file size.

Of course every user is different, but as a result of that article I lowered my page file to a min. of 1 GB and max. of 8 GB for 12 GB of memory. The article indicated that while some page file is necessary for a memory dump, it most likely will not be used when adequate memory is present.

Again, situations are different, and it probably isnt going to hurt using 20 GB of a terabyte drive (or so), but I thought I would mention that after all that time, my page file is still at 1 GB. In these recent machines, with 4-8 GB of RAM, a page file just isn't as significant as it used to be (under normal usage scenareos).

FWIW...
LFS

Karl E. Peterson

unread,

Nov 6, 2012, 12:07:42 PM11/6/12

to

on 11/5/2012, Larry Serflaten supposed :

> I noticed your illustrations show you are using a 20 GB page file for your 10
> GB of memory. Some time ago (7-9 mos?) I read a TechEd article on how
> Windows manages memory, relating what is meant by cached, available, free,
> paged, non-paged, etc. In that article was a discussion of appropreate page
> file size.
>
> Of course every user is different, but as a result of that article I lowered
> my page file to a min. of 1 GB and max. of 8 GB for 12 GB of memory. The
> article indicated that while some page file is necessary for a memory dump,
> it most likely will not be used when adequate memory is present.
>
> Again, situations are different, and it probably isnt going to hurt using 20
> GB of a terabyte drive (or so), but I thought I would mention that after all
> that time, my page file is still at 1 GB. In these recent machines, with 4-8
> GB of RAM, a page file just isn't as significant as it used to be (under
> normal usage scenareos).

Y'know, that was my old machine, and I don't honestly recall what (if
any) rationale I used in setting that. On my new machine, I'm pretty
sure I never even bothered messing with it. Looks like I have 12GB of
each, physical and virtual. Given the vast amounts of storage, the
question probably becomes, is there any /harm/ in just letting it be?

Karl E. Peterson

unread,

Nov 6, 2012, 12:07:56 PM11/6/12

to

Mayayana used his keyboard to write :

:-)