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
>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
>called. we use "_export" keywords to indicate that these functions
>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
>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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk