Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jason Merrill wrote: > > > > It seems that you have a different mental model of type visibility. > > I've gotten a little lost in this thread. Is there a clear proposal for > the semantics that we're leaning towards at this point? > > One meta-note is that we're not the first people to consider this. I > wonder if the rules beginning at page 19 (Inter-DLL symbol visibility > and linkage) of the ARM C++ ABI: > > http://www.arm.com/miscPDFs/8033.pdf > > might be helpful? This is really about mapping dllexport/dllimport onto > ELF symbols, but there are some rules about how to decide whether > members of classes are exported.
It looks like those rules are an attempt to explain Visual Studio-style linkage. If we're interested in having those, Apple's version of GCC implements them with the -fvisibility-ms-compat flag, plus documentation which explains what the flag does from a user point of view (which was by far the hardest part of the implementation of the flag).
