Subject: Re: [boost] Making Boost invisible
From: Zach Laine (whatwasthataddress_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-09-25 17:38:33
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:29 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost <
> On 9/25/18 8:08 PM, John Maddock via Boost wrote:
> > Folks I have a bug report against Boost.Config that I don't know what
> > (if anything) I should do about:
> > https://github.com/boostorg/config/issues/243
> > The issue is this: lets say I build boost as static libraries with
> > -fvisibilty=hidden because I want my application or shared library to
> > *hide all boost symbols*. But there are some parts of boost which
> > unconditionally make things visible - throw_exception is one particular
> > culprit, but there are others, probably anything which uses
> > BOOST_SYMBOL_VISIBLE in fact.
> > Question: should we support this? If so how? The only thing I can
> > think of is a user-defined macro which when set, disables symbol
> > visibility.
> I don't think we need to support this sice the user can already hide any
> symbols with linker scripts.
I've seen this done, and it was extraordinarily painful. To me the need
for this is a vote in favor of supporting this feature request, no
against. Having said that, the only reason I know of that any of this
should actually be required is in an environment where only static linking
is allowed (e.g. a game console).
Is there a reason the requester could not just link to Boost dynamically?