This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Software Convention Proposal


On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:03:34PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> A problem area, however, are third-party libraries.  In that
> case, given that we cannot modify the headers, the best we can
> do is create a list of the symbols that should be bound a
> particular way and present it to the compiler through some side
> channel.  E.g. a file associated with a command line switch.
> 
> >  -fprotected -fdefault <file> 
> 
> I'm not thrilled about using the same switch to mean two
> different things.  Certainly you couldn't just leave the
> filename unassociated like that.  So at minimum you'd need
> 
> 	-fprotected -fdefault=<file>
> 
> But I'd prefer switches that differed slightly.  Perhaps
> 
> 	-fvisibility=protected
> 	-fvisibility-default=<file>
> 
> I'd like input from others on this.

How is this different from just sourcing another header with
#define H(x) extern __typeof(x) x __attribute__((visibility("hidden")));
H(foo)
H(bar)
H(baz)
? The only difference I can think of is if the headers then define
macros with the same names as the functions...

	Jakub


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]