[M3devel] import from same .so or not

[Tony Hosking]

There question is where and how to communicate it back to gcc.  Does it mean putting all the module units on the same command line for compilation by a single instance of cm3cg?  Or do you communicate it some other way?

On 12 Jul 2010, at 19:53, Jay K wrote:

> I don't know. I hope not. The information is there: lowercase interface vs. uppercase Interface, lowercase module vs. uppercase Module, derived_interface(hidden or private).
> I haven't looked at where all it is sent around.
>  
>  - Jay
> 
>  
> > Subject: Re: [M3devel] import from same .so or not
> > From: hosking at cs.purdue.edu
> > Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:28:43 -0400
> > CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> > To: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> > 
> > It seems to me this would require massive reworking of the build infrastructure!
> > 
> > On 11 Jul 2010, at 21:58, Jay K wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > It seems to me, an important bit of information is not provided to the backend.
> > > 
> > > The backend is told "import" or "export".
> > > But this is about "modules", .m3 files to .m3 files.
> > > 
> > > It isn't about .so files to .so files, or .dlls to .dlls.
> > > 
> > > It's really tristate, not boolean:
> > > private to just this source file 
> > > private to this source file and those it statically links to 
> > > public for all 
> > > 
> > > Granted, you might statically link "everything".
> > > There isn't enforcement of the middle state, and symbols still need to be as unique as the third state.
> > > But it is definitely useful.
> > > 
> > > In particular we don't use DECL_VISIBILITY (p) = VISIBILITY_HIDDEN enough.
> > > For a long time we never used it. e.g. in the release branch.
> > > 
> > > Agreed?
> > > Anyone volunteer to fix?
> > > Or mind if I try?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > - Jay
> > > 
> > > 
> > 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20100712/86f123f5/attachment-0002.html>