On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 06:14:24PM +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote:
> The current way we handle Win32 DLL export of symbols is a bit odd in
> my eyes.
I agree ;)
> This way you'll simply add WS_SYMBOL_IMEXPORT to the header file to
> im/export a symbol, e.g.:
>
> WS_SYMBOL_IMEXPORT int eth_stdio_open (...
> Any objections against this (in my eyes cleaner) solution?
Sounds good to me. Would we export all symbols or still only certain
ones?
> P.S: A better name than WS_SYMBOL_IMEXPORT would be nice, any ideas?
> Or is it ok?
What does the IM stand for?
Steve
