On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Benjamin Smedberg <benja...@smedbergs.us>wrote:
> On 4/22/2014 7:31 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > >> It's all over the tree, inconsistently applied. Is it relevant anymore? >> Can >> we remove it entirely, or there some places where it's still relevant, and >> if so, where ... XPCOM? Or should we be using it everywhere? >> > > Short answer: I don't think it's relevant any more. > > Long answer: Each compiler and platform is a little different, so here's > my take on where we are: > > * Windows/MSVC. NS_HIDDEN never had any effect; symbols are hidden by > default and need dllexport to be exported > * Mac/GCC or clang. We compile with -fvisibility=hidden. This means that > all symbols are hidden by default and you need NS_EXPORT to mark them as > exported/dynamic. Declarations are treated as dynamic. However because > Mach-O executables use direct relocations, there is no actual difference > between the generated code referencing a hidden or dynamic symbol, so we're > fine. > * Linux/GCC or clang. We compile with #pragma visibility. This means that > all symbols and declarations are treated as hidden by default and require > NS_EXPORT if they are exported/dynamic. > On B2G and Android we're compiling with -fvisibility=hidden. configure output says: checking For gcc visibility bug with class-level attributes (GCC bug 26905)... yes checking For x86_64 gcc visibility bug with builtins (GCC bug 20297)... yes Is that a problem? Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
