Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-01-26 14:07:14

At 10:33 PM 1/20/00 +0000, jorg.schaible_at_[hidden] wrote:

>// Sun Workshop Compiler C++
># elif defined __SUNPRO_CC
># if __SUNPRO_CC <= 0x500
># endif

Added to config.hpp. Thanks!

># if defined BOOST_DECL_EXPORTS
># define BOOST_DECL __declspec(dllexport)
># else
># define BOOST_DECL __declspec(dllimport)
># endif
>These lines must be repeated for all compilers that support building
DLL's. I am
>not aware of any current (!) compiler that allows to build DLL's
without knowing
>this syntax. Even the gcc for Windows or latest IBM OS/2 compiler
(if I remember
>correctly) support it and either the lines have to be aded for the
gcc too or
>they should be moved out of scope of the compiler specific parts. I
request the
>latter just to "limit the complexity of config.hpp".

Hum... Is that really true? What about compilers that don't support
building DLL's, or support them but are building from a static
library at the moment? Shouldn't BOOST_DECL be null in that case?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at