Re: libpq's pollution of application namespace

From: "William ZHANG" <uniware(at)zedware(dot)org>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: libpq's pollution of application namespace
Date: 2005-10-20 10:20:37
Message-ID: dj7r1m$2mkp$1@news.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I think it is a good idea to make the exported symbols clearer.
We should only export the symbols needed. The
output of "dlltool --export-all" is too big.
AFAIK, we can generate *.def for Win32/MSVC++
from a text file like this.
PQclear
PQfn
FooGlobalData DATA

"Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> wrote
> On Mon, 2005-17-10 at 13:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I dislike portability approaches that try to enumerate supported cases,
>> rather than being general in the first place.
>
> Do we need to have this on every platform we support? The symbols we
> want to hide are internal by convention anyway -- using a linker script
> or similar technique just improves upon this by preventing applications
> from misbehaving (and it also improves performance slightly). If no one
> has bothered to add support for a particular platform's linker they
> won't get these benefits, but that doesn't seem like a disaster.
>
> -Neil
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2005-10-20 10:59:49 Re: libpq's pollution of application namespace
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2005-10-20 09:43:51 Re: multi-relation indices