[Bug c++/9283] __attribute__((visibility ("hidden"))) not supported for class/struct

["s_gccbugzilla at nedprod dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From s_gccbugzilla at nedprod dot com  2004-02-01 17:29 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> Niall, it seems you didn't understand the purpose of the bugreport. The major 
> problem right now is that you cannot change the visibility for all members 
> of a class with one statement from default.

No I absolutely agree with that.

> Wether that is "default == hidden" and  "overwrite == visible" or  
> "default == visible" and "overwrite == hidden" doesn't matter, since both 
> variants need the very same level of support in the compiler, which  
> currently does not exist.

Precisely my point.

> Of course our long term plan is it to be able to default to 
> visibility==hidden, but right now thats not possible because of a missing 
> feature which this wishlist item requests.

What I was trying to bring was the need for maintaining a compatible syntax with 
MSVC eg; making it "class Foo __attribute__ (("hidden"))" would banjax the tens 
of millions of lines of code which could be converted to use your feature by 
adjusting some macro definitions. Now you seem to know this because of how you 
framed your example, but I have noticed an alarming negativity in this list 
about interoperability features with MSVC just because it's a Microsoft product.

> I don't actually want to argue with you which default visibility is right 
> or wrong. If you want to have that changed, then please open a separate 
> bugreport, because it is not the topic of this one :) 

My original bug report was #13905 which I was told was too similar to yours and 
they closed it (many times). I did point out on that bug that what I proposed 
slightly exceeded what you did, but they told me go post an outline of the 
differences to this bug report, which I did.

My apologies if this didn't come across as I intended it. BTW I feel that 
default visibility is the right of each user to choose, I feel tools are there 
to create choice and flexibility and thus both avenues should be available. Free 
software is about being better than proprietary and a large part of that is 
being interoperable with him when he is trying to wreck us with dirty tactics!

Cheers,
Niall


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9283