Re: [boost] [Boost.DLL] Formal Review request

2014-10-03 13:44 GMT+04:00 Mathias Gaunard :

On 02/10/14 14:45, Antony Polukhin wrote:

Yes, you can. Though C++ name will be mangled and some `void

...

boost::foo(std::sting)` will change to something like `N5boostN3foosE`. Importing function by `N5boostN3foosE` name does not looks user friendly, especially assuming the fact that different compilers have different mangling scheme.

The alias name - is a not mangled name for C++ symbol.

Your library could simply be extended to support automatic mangling/demangling for whatever platform you're running it on. All compilers provide functions for demangling (__cxa_demangle, UnDecorateSymbolName/__unDName), however I'm not aware of functions being provided for mangling.

I've tried to do so, but mangling is a very big unsolvable (on a library level) problem. Mangling depends on source code, for example "boost::foo" could be foo function or foo variable. Depending on that knowledge it must be mangled in different ways. More problems arise if foo is an overloaded function that accepts parameters: "boost::foo(variant)". In that case full name of parameter must be specified, which could be boost::variant or variant ... There was an idea to allow user to forward declare function and generate mangled name from it: namespace boost { void foo(variant); } boost::dll::magic_mangle(boost::foo); But that idea has epic failed... Because of linker problems and no reliable way to get mangled symbol name from compiler internals at compile time. At least I have not found one (any ideas are welcomed). That's why aliases were considered a lesser evil: BOOST_DLL_ALIAS(boost::foo, foo_variant) // in plugin "foo_variant" // in plugin importer P.S.: I'll add this question to design rationale -- Best regards, Antony Polukhin