Why LoadLibrary is much slower than GetModuleHandle for dll that is already loaded?

re: Why LoadLibrary is much slower than GetModuleHandle for dll that is already loaded?

Qflash — Tue, 17 May 2005 12:56:28 GMT

RePost:
http://www.yeyan.cn/Programming/LoadLibraryGetModuleHandle.aspx

re: Why LoadLibrary is much slower than GetModuleHandle for dll that is already loaded?

Dean Harding — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:35:00 GMT

Right, like I said, I couldn't speak for the context of this discussion. But I was just warning people that this is not a general solution for a faster version of LoadLibrary.

You'd need to add extra code to make sure the libraries are never unloaded until all your GetModuleHandle callers have finished with it (for example, you'd call LoadLibrary the first time, then use GetModuleHandle subsequent times, then when you're all done you can do a FreeLibrary).

re: Why LoadLibrary is much slower than GetModuleHandle for dll that is already loaded?

Junfeng Zhang — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:08:00 GMT

Everything has to be discussed in a context.

The context here is about performance, not about reliability.

re: Why LoadLibrary is much slower than GetModuleHandle for dll that is already loaded?

Dean Harding — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:02:00 GMT

I wouldn't say GetModuleHandle was a better alternative at all. At least not in general (I can't say for the context this discussion was in). There's a pretty major race condition where you might call GetModuleHandle but before you actually try to use the returned handle, the module is unloaded by another thread. That's not a problem with LoadLibrary because it increments the ref count for you.

Interesting finds this week

Jason Haley — Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:46:00 GMT

Interesting finds this week

re: Why LoadLibrary is much slower than GetModluleHandle for dll that is already loaded?

RealOne — Sat, 19 Mar 2005 07:48:00 GMT

GetModuleHandle is a better alternative.

？？？？？？？？？？？？？？