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
