What is the difference between nrf-ble-driver-sd_api_v6-mt-4_1_1.lib and nrf-ble-driver-sd_api_v6-mt-static-4_1_1.lib?

[brianreinhold]

I first assumed the obvious that the first library would be used with the (Visual studio) multi-threaded DLL/MD option and the second would be used with the multi-threaded/MT option. However, I can only build with the multi-threaded DLL/MD option and I only use the static library. I do not include the other library.

I would like to build a stand-alone exe that does not depend upon MS redistributables.

• How would I build a static exe that does not depend upon MS redistributables (everything else I have does NOT require redistributables)?
• How are the two different libraries used and when do I use one versus the other or shall I use both?

[tesc]

Hi,

I am very sorry for the long delay.

I have reached out to the team, but not yet gotten any response. I will reach out again to see if the static alternative is something that we provide.

Regards,
Terje

[brianreinhold]

Thank you! A version for static linking would be very convenient for distribution!

[brianreinhold]

Being closed I guess nothing is going to happen

[tesc]

Hi,

After revisiting the issue, it turns out the two libraries are indeed exactly what you need for either static or dynamic linking of pc-ble-driver. (Use the static one if building pc-ble-driver into your application, or the one without "static" in the name for linking dynamically and requiring the .dll.)

However, the MSVC runtimes are a completely different beast, and from what I now understand that is what you want to link statically as well. That is outside of the scope of pc-ble-driver, but there should be numerous sources for how to do that. Be aware of the pitfalls, however, in particular what might happen if you end up with different versions of the runtime in the same program.

Regards,
Terje

[brianreinhold]

The MSVC part is easy. I know how to do that, As I said inititially, all the support files can be linked statically - it was the pc-ble-driver that could not, because the library was clearly built using dynamic linking.

So what you are saying is that I need to reference the static library (very small) and built using static linking and it will work? Trying to build using static linking failed because the pc-ble-driver was built dysnamically and therefore would not build without dynamic linking

[tesc]

Hi,

Right. I think I see now. The issue is that the static library is "static" in the context of pc-ble-driver (no need to provide pc-ble-driver shared library), but not in the context of MSVC runtimes (need to provide those shared libraries.)

That means you must compile pc-ble-driver from source, instead of using the pre-compiled (differently linked) drivers in the release, and with the proper settings for static linking with the MSVC runtimes.

Regards,
Terje