httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Costello <timcoste...@ozemail.com.au>
Subject RE: [PROPOSED] linkage spec names, final binding vote
Date Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 GMT
I know this was supposed to be final (and this may be slightly off-topic), 
but I don't see why we use AP?_EXPORT for any symbol exporting from dynamic 
link libraries on Win32. We already have linker DEFinition files to do this.

AP?_IMPORT is valuable for importing data - nothing else as far as I can
tell. It saves having to dereference the value in the import address table. 
For importing functions, just link against the import library that is 
created with each DLL. 

My question: Is there any benefit in using APwhatever_EXPORT for functions 
or variables? All I see is a whole mess of #ifdef EXPORT_SYMBOLS stuff in 
apr.hw. 

I think (on Win32 at least) we should '#define AP?_EXPORT(type) type' and 
use DEF files for symbol exporting. It is the simplest method that works 
and the easiest to maintain. All the information about exported symbols is 
in one place, and users of the code don't have to worry about defining 
things before they import headers to indicate whether or not they're 
importing or exporting the functions / variables in the headers).

On Saturday, 27 May 2000, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > 1) APR library functions should be 
> >    prefixed by APR_ linkage names.
> > 
> >    I`m +1 as this stands.
> 
> This is how it is currently implemented and should be left alone.

I agree that existing code shouldn't be touched - but can we do the 
#define APR_EXPORT(type) type
thing I mentioned above (assuming of course, that it's workable) in apr.hw?

This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au



Mime
View raw message