c++ - MyExportedFunc vs _MyExportedFunc 24
- "Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> Jun 13 2003
- mjs NOSPAM.hannover.sgh-net.de (Mark Junker) Jun 14 2003
- "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Jun 18 2003
- Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.us> Jun 19 2003
- "Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> Jun 19 2003
- Keith Fuller <Keith_member pathlink.com> Jun 20 2003
I'm sure this has been well covered, but I still have to ask Is there a reason why DMC++ cannot work with and without the _ & parts of exported DLL functions? Borland, GnuC, Intel, Metrowerks and VC++ all can, so it's not just my wishing to emulate a Microsoft-ism (or if it is, some worthy folks have trodden this path before). It was a royal pita to have to spawn a second .DEF file for a recent port, but I can live with that. What's more of a pain is keeping them in sync. (Yes, I know I could make them all have the _ & forms, but that's just ugly and tiresome to maintain - i.e. one has to trawl the source to find out the number of arg bytes, which the compiler already knows.) Flame away ... Matthew
Jun 13 2003
mjs NOSPAM.hannover.sgh-net.de (Mark Junker) I'm sure this has been well covered, but I still have to ask
Is there a reason why DMC++ cannot work with and without the _ & parts of exported DLL functions? Borland, GnuC, Intel, Metrowerks and VC++ all can, so it's not just my wishing to emulate a Microsoft-ism (or if it is, some worthy folks have trodden this path before).
Borland cannot really cope with that. It simply creates an alias entry (since C++ Builder 5's implib) in the LIB file. Maybe you can use Borlands C++ Builder's implib? Regards, Mark Junker
Jun 14 2003
"Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> wrote in message news:bcdftf$1o69$1 digitaldaemon.com...I'm sure this has been well covered, but I still have to ask Is there a reason why DMC++ cannot work with and without the _ & parts
exported DLL functions? Borland, GnuC, Intel, Metrowerks and VC++ all can, so it's not just my wishing to emulate a Microsoft-ism (or if it is, some worthy folks have trodden this path before). It was a royal pita to have to spawn a second .DEF file for a recent port, but I can live with that. What's more of a pain is keeping them in sync. (Yes, I know I could make them all have the _ & forms, but that's just ugly and tiresome to maintain - i.e. one has to trawl the source to find
the number of arg bytes, which the compiler already knows.) Flame away ...
The fundamental problem is Microsoft started the practice of stripping the suffix off of the system DLL's. There's no way to add on the missing information automatically.
Jun 18 2003
Matthew Wilson wrote:I'm sure this has been well covered, but I still have to ask Is there a reason why DMC++ cannot work with and without the _ & parts of exported DLL functions? Borland, GnuC, Intel, Metrowerks and VC++ all can, so it's not just my wishing to emulate a Microsoft-ism (or if it is, some worthy folks have trodden this path before). It was a royal pita to have to spawn a second .DEF file for a recent port, but I can live with that. What's more of a pain is keeping them in sync. (Yes, I know I could make them all have the _ & forms, but that's just ugly and tiresome to maintain - i.e. one has to trawl the source to find out the number of arg bytes, which the compiler already knows.) Flame away ...
Does this help at all? http://www.digitalmars.com/~jan/ -- ManiaC++ Jan Knepper
Jun 19 2003
It may well do. Looks nice. I'll check it out. :) "Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.us> wrote in message news:3EF1B8B6.E93CA09C smartsoft.us...Matthew Wilson wrote:I'm sure this has been well covered, but I still have to ask Is there a reason why DMC++ cannot work with and without the _ & parts
exported DLL functions? Borland, GnuC, Intel, Metrowerks and VC++ all
so it's not just my wishing to emulate a Microsoft-ism (or if it is,
worthy folks have trodden this path before). It was a royal pita to have to spawn a second .DEF file for a recent
but I can live with that. What's more of a pain is keeping them in sync. (Yes, I know I could make them all have the _ & forms, but that's just ugly and tiresome to maintain - i.e. one has to trawl the source to find
the number of arg bytes, which the compiler already knows.) Flame away ...
Does this help at all? http://www.digitalmars.com/~jan/ -- ManiaC++ Jan Knepper
Jun 19 2003
Wouldn't it be nice to have a newsgroup dedicated to helpful Auxiliary Tools Links like that? BTW I see nobody is using the .atl newsgroup. :o) In article <3EF1B8B6.E93CA09C smartsoft.us>, Jan Knepper says...Matthew Wilson wrote:I'm sure this has been well covered, but I still have to ask Is there a reason why DMC++ cannot work with and without the _ & parts of exported DLL functions? Borland, GnuC, Intel, Metrowerks and VC++ all can, so it's not just my wishing to emulate a Microsoft-ism (or if it is, some worthy folks have trodden this path before). It was a royal pita to have to spawn a second .DEF file for a recent port, but I can live with that. What's more of a pain is keeping them in sync. (Yes, I know I could make them all have the _ & forms, but that's just ugly and tiresome to maintain - i.e. one has to trawl the source to find out the number of arg bytes, which the compiler already knows.) Flame away ...
Does this help at all? http://www.digitalmars.com/~jan/ -- ManiaC++ Jan Knepper
Jun 20 2003