On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 10:38:46AM +0100, michael meeks wrote: > Hi Giovanni, > > On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 15:36 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > > I'm slow, but I can't understand why a careful design of the interfaces of > > the dynamic libraries > > Well - sure, depends how 'careful' you are ;-) clearly if no C++ > classes with virtual methods form the interface of any library, then > there is no problem ;-) unfortunately, mandating that would rather > cripple C++. > > > together with the new -fvisibility flags, should not > > be sufficient. It worked well in other scenarios > > -fvisibility is helpful - as the paper says, not as helpful as the old > -Bsymbolic (or link maps exposing only 3 or so functions) were. However > - -fvisibility can only help so much - if you have: >
Since you were comparing Windows vs. ELF, doesn't Windows need a file to define which symbols to export for a shared library? Why can't you you do it with ELF using a linker map? Libstdc++.so is built with a linker map. Any C++ shared library should use one if the startup time is a big concern. Of coursee, if gcc can generate a list of symbols suitable for linker map, which needs to be exported, it will be very helpful. I don't think it will be too hard to implement. H.J.
