Boost logo

Boost :

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

"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> 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


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at