Re: dllexport and inline methods

[JonY <10walls at gmail dot com>]

On 4/6/2013 16:42, Geoff Worboys wrote:
>> Please do not compare ELF visibility to PE exports, ever.
>> They are completely unrelated.
> 
> I accept that they are not identical, but visibility and export
> very definitely overlap at the conceptual level.
> 
> From the gcc doc:
> "dllexport
> [...]On systems that support the visibility attribute, this
> attribute also implies “default” visibility."
> 
> And this article: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Visibility
> that definitely compares visibility and dllexport.
> 
> Perhaps what you meant to say was that the option
>     -fvisibility-inlines-hidden
> does not apply under Windows.  The concept certainly applies,
> but if the option isn't applicable then I will ignore it.
> 
> 

None of them do apply to Windows, so please drop this part. Those are
just bad analogies, and at most, tangent to PE symbol exports.

> 
> I'm not trying to start an msvc vs gcc argument, just trying to
> demonstrate what is expected of a shared library under Windows.
> I feel confident saying "expected" because of the many major
> libraries in which the code is written like the class A (and/or
> class B) examples of my OP.  To ignore this expectation is to
> say that gcc should not be used to compile such shared
> libraries under Windows.
> 

Like I said, please file a ticket if you expect the behavior in GCC to
change for Windows.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature