Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email protected]> writes: > One other approach would to be keep a different namespace for private > symbols that need to be exported for test applications and so.
That makes sense. But I don't understand what type of "namespaces" you refer to here. Can you explain? How would a test program gain access to functions in the internal namespace? >> Would it work to instead exclude _nettle_mp?_* or so? > > That could be an option if it would work with the version script. > However, that would make the version script a place to list the > functions not to be exported, rather than vice-versa, and thus would be > hard to manage. Hmm. And yet another option might be to use visibility attributes (an ELF feature, I understand roughly how they work, but I don't have any real experience). Regards, /Niels -- Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26. Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance. _______________________________________________ nettle-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/nettle-bugs
