Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-31 16:56:29


At 05:13 PM 10/29/2004, Robert Ramey wrote:
>...
>I don't think that CW is incorrect in this. Its just that this behavior
is
>not desired in some cases. Another case where this is a problem is the
>implementation of a DLL. We implement functions but they are not
>explicitly
>called. we use "_export" keywords to indicate that these functions
should
>be instantiated and not optimised away even though the functions are not
>explicitly called by name. This method resolved the issue for all other
>platforms. It doesn't conform to any standard that I know of. I don't
>there is a standard conforming way of specifying this behavior.
>Unfortunately, CW doesn't seem to respond in this way to the "export"
>keyword - even though it accepts it. It leaves me wondering how one
makes
>a
>DLL in CW without losing all the functions in the compiled object. I
>searched high and low for a compiler switch and/or pragma that would fix
>this - but was unsuccessful.

That sounds like a question you could ask on codewarrior.windows. That
newsgroup is closely monitored by several Metrowerks employees, and they
are usually pretty good about responding to queries.

--Beman


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk