Re: [boost] Re: [Config] proposal of new macro, BOOST_DECL :follow up for boost::noncopyable & vc7.1 & dll

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-05 06:16:33

> It has been suggested to me that it would be better (for other reasons) to 
> mark individual member functions as exported rather than marking whole 
> classes. Would that also help in this situation? I haven't looked closely 
> yet, but if the individual member functions of the thread classes are 
> exported then this warning may no longer be generated.
>
> Would there be any problems with changing to this approach?

Is it supported by all compilers that use __declspec(dllexport)?  What 
happens on 64-bit platforms, do we have different class layouts for exported 
and non-exported classes (like we used to on Win-16)?  I'm assuming that 
there is some kind of logic for the warning being issued in the first place, 
or maybe not?

John.