On Sun, 12 Oct 2008, Szak�ts Viktor wrote:
Hi Viktor,
> HB_EXPORT is also a perfect name. As for making it the
We already use HB_EXPORT for exported function attributes
though it's wtill possible to use the same name.
In hbdefs.h we will have to make sth like:
#ifdef HB_EXPORT
#undef HB_EXPORT
[define new HB_EXPORT]
#endif
> default, it would actually be great, as - but I may be
> wrong - it would make the separate compile process for
> .dll creation unnecessary in non-GNU builds. I may
> also enable .dll creation for BCC/MSVC in GNU-builds.
Yes, it will not be necessary to make separate compilation for
shared library on some platforms if shared library does not need
relocatable code.
> Question, what disadvantage would it have, why wasn't it
> turned on so far?
There are two differences:
1. a little bit bigger binaries because the size of exported
symbol table will be bigger.
2. It will be possible to access exported symbols from other DLLs
(this is what we need to load PCODE DLLs though to be precise
it's not strictly necessary and we can add workaround for it,
in some cases it may be even interesting so probably I'll
implement such functionality)
> Okay. Pls note that we now have the version number
> in the .dll names. The whole .dll generation is still
> a mess, so it's pretty hard to build on it, but other
> than this I see no problem with your change at all.
The harbour*.dll is not used with static binaries at all and
as you can see in the code I send there is workaround for MSVC and
BCC names though I do not know if the extensions were not recently
changed.
best regards,
Przemek
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
