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
