Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] support for gcc hidden visibility in shared libraries
From: Alexander Arhipenko (arhipjan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-17 06:28:35

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Alexander Arhipenko <arhipjan_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Guys, while reading through your fruitful comments, I've became to the
> following conclusions:
> 1. We should preserve default behavior of each toolset when building boost,
> e.g., for gcc compilation should be performed with visibility=default
> 2. We should give the ability to users:
> a) simplify build of custom libraries by providing macros such as
> b) build needed boost library with custom visibility (hidden,
> ms-compat etc).
> All this ideas are implemented in attached patches.
> The first patch is for boost-build.
> It provides new composite feature 'hide-symbols' with available options:
> on, off, ms-compat, inlines-hidden.
> So, if I would like to build filesystem with hidden visibility, I can
> do the followings:
> * In boost root directory type "bjam /boost/filesystem hide-symbols=on"
> * In my library's Jamfile:
> alias filesystem : /boost/filesystem : <hide-symbols>on ;
> 'hide-symbols' feature should work only for gcc and darwin toolsets.
> For the others it does nothing.
> Unfortunately I had no ability to test darwin.
> It worth mentioning that I'm not a expert, so this patch
> supposed to be
> rather *ugly* and should be carefully reviewed by some guy.
> The second patch affects all the boost configuration files with
> BOOST_XXX_DECL macroses:
> __declspec(dllexport)/(dllimort) are simply replaced with macroses
> As you may see, attached patches preserve default behavior of boost
> build procedure.
> Unit tests.
> I've performed unit testing for affected libraries (with gcc (GCC)
> 4.1.2 20071124 (Red Hat 4.1.2-42) ).
> All of them (except serialization) was built with hidden visibility.
> It was 2 failures in program_options (as Andrey predicted ;) ) in
> exception wasn't caught (variable_map_test_dll, unicode_test_dll).
> All the others run smoothly (unless I missed something).
> Exceptions.
> This worries me a lot, since all the exceptions that wasn't *properly
> exported* will never be caught.
> Saying *properly exported* I mean:
> they always have default visibility
> or
> have been exported from shared library and have at least one key function,
> i.e. "non-pure virtual function that is not inline at the point of
> class definition"
> To reproduce this issue, you can try to build attached sample project
> and run ./install/fee_client /some/invalid/path:
> boost::filesystem_error and boost::system_error won't be caught.
> (Note, dependent boost libraries should be build with default visibility).
> Regards
> P.S. Again, comments and questions will be really apreciated

Any feedback?


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