Re: dllexport and inline methods

[JonY <10walls at gmail dot com>]

On 4/6/2013 19:53, JonY wrote:
> 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.
> 

Kai, maybe you can give more inputs.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature