On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:25:01AM -0400, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > On 4/22/2014 7:31 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > >It's all over the tree, inconsistently applied. Is it relevant anymore? Can > >we remove it entirely, or there some places where it's still relevant, and > >if so, where ... XPCOM? Or should we be using it everywhere? > > Short answer: I don't think it's relevant any more. > > Long answer: Each compiler and platform is a little different, so here's my > take on where we are: > > * Windows/MSVC. NS_HIDDEN never had any effect; symbols are hidden by > default and need dllexport to be exported > * Mac/GCC or clang. We compile with -fvisibility=hidden. This means that all > symbols are hidden by default and you need NS_EXPORT to mark them as > exported/dynamic. Declarations are treated as dynamic. However because > Mach-O executables use direct relocations, there is no actual difference > between the generated code referencing a hidden or dynamic symbol, so we're > fine.
FWIW, this is not entirely true: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=961264#c11 Mike _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
