> Working on this now. Curious what people think of this, and if there's a
> better way that I'm missing (other than ditching MS which unfortunately
> isn't an option at the moment).
Just offer your libraries only as DLLs... that bypasses this whole
mess. That is what many people who distribute
> > #if BUILDING_LIBFOO && HAVE_VISIBILITY
> > #define LIBFOO_DLL_EXPORTED
__attribute__((__visibility__("default")))
> > #elif BUILDING_LIBFOO && defined _MSC_VER
> > #define LIBFOO_DLL_EXPORTED __declspec(dllexport)
> > #elif defined _MSC_VER
> > #define LIBFOO_DLL_E
> I tried to reproduce (but failed, so I think the symbol pipe is
> definitely out of the loop):
I agree. I was on the road to put this together when I found the broken
UTL_EXPORT as the culprit. Thanks for going to the trouble to build a
simple example. By bad for not doing this before I poste
> > UTL_EXPORT becomes __declspec(dllexport) when compiling
> > the shared lib, __declspec(dllimport) when compiling the
> > executable that uses it.
>
> did you double check if that really works on both sides?
> your problem sound to me as if dllimport is missing
> somewhere.
Not enough. I chec
Den 2009-08-15 21:41 skrev Peter Rosin:
However, to be 100% certain and eliminate any doubt you can - if you
wish - configure with NM=nm (instead of dumpbin -symbols) and see if
that makes any difference.
I tried to reproduce (but failed, so I think the symbol pipe is
definitely out of the loop
