Re: [boost] Re: [serialization] The problems with CW...

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