From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-04 20:57:28
E. Gladyshev wrote:
> --- Edward Diener <eddielee_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Exporting/importing C++ classes is completely
>> implementation dependent, due
>> mainly to name mangling, and requires a DLL for a
>> platform/compiler/release to be built.
> There are several issues with DLL and C++, to name
> 1. Name mangling
> 2. Using inline methods in the exported class.
> 3. Global class instanses in the DLL.
> How does boost ensure that inline methods don't
> conflict with the exported methods. The conflict can
> be platform specific.
> Is it allowed to have global instances of a class in
> boost's DLLs?
> Are there any development policies on how exported C++
> classes should be implemented/tested in boost?
Good questions, but as I have never attempted to export classes with inline
methods or have global instances of classes in a DLL in my own non-Boost
work, Boost implementors will have to answer you on these items.
I admit that I have stayed away from "inline" in my career, and no doubt I
will soon be castigated by all those who will tell me why "inline" speeds up
As for global objects, like many C++ programmers I use them as little as
necessary, and would never think to export a global object itself as opposed
to class definitions and their member functions.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk