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
>
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 |