Nigel Stewart wrote:
However, the warnings can be removed by exporting only members which truly need to be exported
I would be a bit reluctant about "pollution"
Have you seen the boost header files?! :)
There are some other benefits: smaller binaries, the optimizer seems to do a better job...
Sounds interesting, any further information available?
Nigel
Whoops! Try again... With: class MY_LIB_API my_class { public: void some_fn(); void some_inline_fn() { ++m_i; } int get() { return m_i; } private: int m_i; }; dumpbin /exports exports.dll Microsoft (R) COFF/PE Dumper Version 7.10.3077 Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Dump of file exports.dll File Type: DLL Section contains the following exports for exports.dll 00000000 characteristics 430C9B5E time date stamp Wed Aug 24 11:07:58 2005 0.00 version 1 ordinal base 4 number of functions 4 number of names ordinal hint RVA name 1 0 00001020 ??4my_class@@QAEAAV0@ABV0@@Z 2 1 00001010 ?get@my_class@@QAEHXZ 3 2 00001000 ?some_fn@my_class@@QAEXXZ 4 3 00001000 ?some_inline_fn@my_class@@QAEXXZ So the "inline" functions are actually exported from the dll. Whereas: class my_class { public: MY_LIB_API void some_fn(); void some_inline_fn() { ++m_i; } int get() { return m_i; } private: int m_i; }; dumpbin /exports exports.dll Microsoft (R) COFF/PE Dumper Version 7.10.3077 Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Dump of file exports.dll File Type: DLL Section contains the following exports for exports.dll 00000000 characteristics 430C9BA8 time date stamp Wed Aug 24 11:09:12 2005 0.00 version 1 ordinal base 1 number of functions 1 number of names ordinal hint RVA name 1 0 00001000 ?some_fn@my_class@@QAEXXZ You only get the explicitly exported methods. All makes sense, I suppose. As far as optimizations go, I've seen that a client of a dll may not use an inline method and may make an actual dll call if the inline method is declspeced. I just tried that with a simple example and of course couldn't demonstrate it... Luke.