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

From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-05 14:05:23

"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:02c501c4c329$f3b9c4d0$38eb0352_at_fuji...
>> 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?

I'm afraid I don't currently know the answers to these questions. I 
was hoping someone else here would be able to answer questions like 
these.

Mike