On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip problems with -fvisibility=hidden]
Thanks for the clarifications. (perhaps this is related to what Mat Marcus was hinting about?)
So it doesn't look like a trivial change in settings and macros to me. What's worst, making such a change can trigger problems that are hardly detected by unit tests. Perhaps, we should just mandate the visibility=hidden mode not supported for now. Maybe --fvisibility-ms-compat or --fvisibility-inlines-hidden would be a better choice to support?
Sounds good to me, like I said my understanding of this is limited. It looks like the list of possible changes, in the order of potential breakage danger are: 1. add BOOST_SYMBOL_EXPORT / IMPORT config macros [this breaks nothing] 2. modify existing boost libraries that use similar macros of their own to use the boost.config macros [if the functionality of the new macros is a superset of the old macros, shouldn't break anything] 3. modify the default boost build to use -fvisibility-ms-compat or --fvisibility-inlines-hidden [low risk?] 4. modify the default boost build to use -fvisibility-hidden [high risk?] The patch by Alexander Arhipenko does 1,2, and 4. Perhaps we can at least start with 1, or 1 and 2? Stjepan