From: Bob Kline (bkline_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-24 07:24:47
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, John Maddock wrote:
> > I'm probably about to expose embarrassing ignorance about how C++ really
> > works, but isn't it possible that our software could be vulnerable to
> > future behavior of the regex++ package which would break our code if
> > parts of a base class used by the package aren't accessible at runtime?
> > What I mean is this: even if we determine by careful inspection that
> > nothing in our code explicitly tries to use those inaccessible parts of
> > the base class, it's possible that macros in the regex++ headers might
> > make reference to those parts, causing some sort of runtime failure.
> > How far off base is this line of thought?
> I'm not sure I follow: the non-exported base class has it's full
> definition visible in the header (all it's functions are declared
> inline so there is nothing to be exported/imported). BTW the STL
> classes all have the same issue, if you catch a std::runtime_error
> thrown from std::string, you're catching a non-exported class that
> was thrown from a dll...
Thanks, sounds like we're safe to turn off this warning. Just trying to
perform due diligence for my customer (and for the folks who will need
to maintain my software after I've moved on). :->}
-- Bob Kline mailto:bkline_at_[hidden] http://www.rksystems.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk