Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.DLL] Formal Review request
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-10-05 16:49:24
On October 5, 2014 2:10:24 PM EDT, arvid <arvid_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>On 2014-10-02 05:45, Antony Polukhin wrote:
>> 2014-10-02 16:18 GMT+04:00 Mathias Gaunard
>> - I did not find any rationale for the alias mechanism. Surely you
>> can work
>>> with C++ symbols without needing to alias them with a C name?
>> Yes, you can. Though C++ name will be mangled and some `void
>> boost::foo(std::sting)` will change to something like
>> Importing function by `N5boostN3foosE` name does not looks user
>> especially assuming the fact that different compilers have different
>> mangling scheme.
>> The alias name - is a not mangled name for C++ symbol.
>In my mind, the single most useful feature of a library like this
>would be to add type-safety to GetProcAddress(), essentially.
>i.e. specify the the type and name, the library mangles it and
>loads it and returns the correct function pointer type.
There is definitely value in a portable interface over an inherently unsafe interface. Any name mangling functionality would be an additional benefit.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk