136 lines
5.7 KiB
Markdown
136 lines
5.7 KiB
Markdown
|
|
FAQ
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
#### What's the license?
|
|
|
|
These libraries are in the public domain. You can do anything you
|
|
want with them. You have no legal obligation
|
|
to do anything else, although I appreciate attribution.
|
|
|
|
They are also licensed under the MIT open source license, if you have lawyers
|
|
who are unhappy with public domain. Every source file includes an explicit
|
|
dual-license for you to choose from.
|
|
|
|
#### How do I use these libraries?
|
|
|
|
The idea behind single-header file libraries is that they're easy to distribute and deploy
|
|
because all the code is contained in a single file. By default, the .h files in here act as
|
|
their own header files, i.e. they declare the functions contained in the file but don't
|
|
actually result in any code getting compiled.
|
|
|
|
So in addition, you should select _exactly one_ C/C++ source file that actually instantiates
|
|
the code, preferably a file you're not editing frequently. This file should define a
|
|
specific macro (this is documented per-library) to actually enable the function definitions.
|
|
For example, to use stb_image, you should have exactly one C/C++ file that doesn't
|
|
include stb_image.h regularly, but instead does
|
|
|
|
#define STB_IMAGE_IMPLEMENTATION
|
|
#include "stb_image.h"
|
|
|
|
The right macro to define is pointed out right at the top of each of these libraries.
|
|
|
|
#### <a name="other_libs"></a> Are there other single-file public-domain/open source libraries with minimal dependencies out there?
|
|
|
|
[Yes.](https://github.com/nothings/single_file_libs)
|
|
|
|
#### If I wrap an stb library in a new library, does the new library have to be public domain/MIT?
|
|
|
|
No, because it's public domain you can freely relicense it to whatever license your new
|
|
library wants to be.
|
|
|
|
#### What's the deal with SSE support in GCC-based compilers?
|
|
|
|
stb_image will either use SSE2 (if you compile with -msse2) or
|
|
will not use any SIMD at all, rather than trying to detect the
|
|
processor at runtime and handle it correctly. As I understand it,
|
|
the approved path in GCC for runtime-detection require
|
|
you to use multiple source files, one for each CPU configuration.
|
|
Because stb_image is a header-file library that compiles in only
|
|
one source file, there's no approved way to build both an
|
|
SSE-enabled and a non-SSE-enabled variation.
|
|
|
|
While we've tried to work around it, we've had multiple issues over
|
|
the years due to specific versions of gcc breaking what we're doing,
|
|
so we've given up on it. See https://github.com/nothings/stb/issues/280
|
|
and https://github.com/nothings/stb/issues/410 for examples.
|
|
|
|
#### Some of these libraries seem redundant to existing open source libraries. Are they better somehow?
|
|
|
|
Generally they're only better in that they're easier to integrate,
|
|
easier to use, and easier to release (single file; good API; no
|
|
attribution requirement). They may be less featureful, slower,
|
|
and/or use more memory. If you're already using an equivalent
|
|
library, there's probably no good reason to switch.
|
|
|
|
#### Can I link directly to the table of stb libraries?
|
|
|
|
You can use [this URL](https://github.com/nothings/stb#stb_libs) to link directly to that list.
|
|
|
|
#### Why do you list "lines of code"? It's a terrible metric.
|
|
|
|
Just to give you some idea of the internal complexity of the library,
|
|
to help you manage your expectations, or to let you know what you're
|
|
getting into. While not all the libraries are written in the same
|
|
style, they're certainly similar styles, and so comparisons between
|
|
the libraries are probably still meaningful.
|
|
|
|
Note though that the lines do include both the implementation, the
|
|
part that corresponds to a header file, and the documentation.
|
|
|
|
#### Why single-file headers?
|
|
|
|
Windows doesn't have standard directories where libraries
|
|
live. That makes deploying libraries in Windows a lot more
|
|
painful than open source developers on Unix-derivates generally
|
|
realize. (It also makes library dependencies a lot worse in Windows.)
|
|
|
|
There's also a common problem in Windows where a library was built
|
|
against a different version of the runtime library, which causes
|
|
link conflicts and confusion. Shipping the libs as headers means
|
|
you normally just compile them straight into your project without
|
|
making libraries, thus sidestepping that problem.
|
|
|
|
Making them a single file makes it very easy to just
|
|
drop them into a project that needs them. (Of course you can
|
|
still put them in a proper shared library tree if you want.)
|
|
|
|
Why not two files, one a header and one an implementation?
|
|
The difference between 10 files and 9 files is not a big deal,
|
|
but the difference between 2 files and 1 file is a big deal.
|
|
You don't need to zip or tar the files up, you don't have to
|
|
remember to attach *two* files, etc.
|
|
|
|
#### Why "stb"? Is this something to do with Set-Top Boxes?
|
|
|
|
No, they are just the initials for my name, Sean T. Barrett.
|
|
This was not chosen out of egomania, but as a moderately sane
|
|
way of namespacing the filenames and source function names.
|
|
|
|
#### Will you add more image types to stb_image.h?
|
|
|
|
No. As stb_image use has grown, it has become more important
|
|
for us to focus on security of the codebase. Adding new image
|
|
formats increases the amount of code we need to secure, so it
|
|
is no longer worth adding new formats.
|
|
|
|
#### Do you have any advice on how to create my own single-file library?
|
|
|
|
Yes. https://github.com/nothings/stb/blob/master/docs/stb_howto.txt
|
|
|
|
#### Why public domain?
|
|
|
|
I prefer it over GPL, LGPL, BSD, zlib, etc. for many reasons.
|
|
Some of them are listed here:
|
|
https://github.com/nothings/stb/blob/master/docs/why_public_domain.md
|
|
|
|
#### Why C?
|
|
|
|
Primarily, because I use C, not C++. But it does also make it easier
|
|
for other people to use them from other languages.
|
|
|
|
#### Why not C99? stdint.h, declare-anywhere, etc.
|
|
|
|
I still use MSVC 6 (1998) as my IDE because it has better human factors
|
|
for me than later versions of MSVC.
|