apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@lyra.org>
Subject Re: FW: cvs commit: apr-util libaprutil.def
Date Fri, 05 Jan 2001 01:25:41 GMT
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 07:39:22PM -0500, Allan Edwards wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allan Edwards [mailto:ake@meepzor.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:25 PM
> To: Greg Stein
> Subject: RE: cvs commit: apr-util libaprutil.def
> 
> > Why is that showing up in two export files? Shouldn't it live in only one
> > library?
>
> There are actually a few (haven't determined exactly how many)
> duplicate exports in libhttpd.def and libaprutil.def - It had struck
> me as rather odd when I made the name change and intended to 
> go back and investigate. Having had chance to dig further I 
> think the problem is solved (at least for ap_current_hooking_module)
> by removing it from libhttpd.def and adding a dependency on 
> libaprutil in the mod_dav project. I'll go ahead and make that 
> fix and remove any other duplicates I find in libhttpd.def

Cool. I saw your check in to clean that up.

> BTW. the other question that crossed my mind was why do we need .def file
> entry anyway, we are defining APU_DECLARE_EXPORT which should translate
> to __declspec(dllexport) and according to MS doesn't require a .def file.
> (for some reason however it will not currently compile unless we do have
> the .def file entry)

Ask OtherBill. I believe his medium/long-term goal is to toss the .def files
in favor of the *_EXPORT declarations. But I dunno... I might just be
thinking about tossing the ordinals.

But as a peanut gallery attendee, I would agree with you. The declspec and
the .def would appear to be redundant and we can/should choose one or the
other.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Mime
View raw message