Re: [boost] [config] Request for BOOST_SYMBOL_IMPORT_VISIBLE ?

Subject: Re: [boost] [config] Request for BOOST_SYMBOL_IMPORT_VISIBLE ?
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-07 11:46:39

>> Thoughts? Would anybody be interested in something like this?
>
> No, IMO unless this is obvious and easy to use then no-one will use it. My
> point is we need more simplicity, not more complexity.

And another thing... ;-)

Can someone please explain what's wrong with changing BOOST_SYMBOL_IMPORT to 
__attribute__((visibility("default"))) ?

Surely the only things that GCC can re-export in that case is RTTI info and 
class vtables (it doesn't have access to member function definitions after 
all only declarations) - and that's exactly what we want to happen right? 
For sure we may re-export some symbols that end up not being used, but in 
principle a shared library cannot know in advance what it's clients will use 
/ need anyway?

Sorry if I'm being dense.

Cheers, John.