On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 09:26, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> As I mentioned, we don't need the marks in our build environment at all. >> >> In that case, anybody who does need it should fix their build >> environment. >> >> I grow really weary of the idea that we should submit to arbitrary >> amounts of uglification of our source code so that it will deal with >> this week's Windows oddness. The Windows folk need to be willing to >> do a bit of work on their end. > > Windows has 3 levels of function visibilities in a DLL: > 1. exported from the DLL > 2. module global, but not exported > 3. static (private in file), of course not exported > > On UNIXes, 2 is always 1. So we don't have to distinguish between > global and exported functions. But standard DLL projects on Windows > require marking which functions should be exported. > > I'm not sure why we can build modules without any EXPORT marks, > though we can do it actually... It is very unnatural on Windows. > > > If we want to avoid adding PGDLLEXPORTs, we could have "sample MSVC > project with proper settings" in tutorial or documentation instead. > It should be opened with VC++ GUI (not from command line!) and can > be generate DLLs in the same way we're using to build the core.
We're talking about the "export all symbols" thing, right? I *don't* think we want to recommend people to do that - it creates bloated DLL files, for no really good reason. Also, it's not just a matter of a msvc project - we do that with a perl hack (http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=blob;f=src/tools/msvc/gendef.pl;h=b8538dd79b8baf21ede87b2ec1aba0276fd3b3d9;hb=62b6aaa40b2abb26edf18d1cd00dffcac090f67a). It's not a good way. We might, however, want to add a specific section to the *documentation* about building extensions on Windows. We have section 35.9.6 which lists a bunch of OSes, where windows is clearly missing. But perhaps a complete section of it's own, like the one for pgxs in 35.9.6, would be even better? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
