I can think of a a few reasons.
- Using .lib files mean you can build for a different version of a DLL than you have on your system, provided you just have the correct SDK installed.
- Compilers & linkers need to support cross-platform compilations - You might be building for a 64-bit target on a 32-bit platform and vice-versa and not have the correct architecture DLL present.
- .lib files enable you to "hide" certain parts of your implementation - you could have private exports that do not show up in the .lib but are discoverable via GetProcAddress. You can also do ordinal exports in which case they don't have a friendly name exported, but would have a friendly name in the .lib.
- Native DLL's do not have strong names, so it may be possible to pick up the wrong version of the DLL.
- And most importantly, this technology was designed in the 1980's. If it were designed today, it'd probably be closer to what you describe - for instance, .NET you just need to reference the target assembly and you have everything you need to use it.
I don't know of any way to do implicit linking solely with the DLL - A quick search revealed several tools, but I haven't used any of them.
In this case, I would create a separate source file with the functions you need to use, and dynamically load the DLL and bind them as needed. For example:
// using global variables and no-error handling for brevity.
HINSTANCE theDll = NULL;
typedef void (__stdcall * FooPtr)();
FooPtr pfnFoo = NULL;
INIT_ONCE initOnce;
BOOL CALLBACK BindDLL(PINIT_ONCE initOnce, PVOID parameter, PVOID context)
{
theDll = LoadLibrary();
pfnfoo = GetProcAddress(dll, "Foo");
return TRUE;
}
// Export for foo
void Foo()
{
// Use one-time init for thread-safe lazy initialization
InitOnceExecuteOnce(initOnce, BinDll, NULL, NULL)
pfnFoo();
}
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…