Re: [lmi] Testing build with native MinGW 4.9.1

[Greg Chicares]

On 2016-01-29 02:08, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:53:39 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
[...]
> GC> I tried twiddling 'force_linking.hpp' by adding LMI_SO to various
> GC> combinations of the three declarations of
> GC>   lmi_link_dummy_func_##translation_unit_name()
> GC> but that only introduced more diagnostics. And AFAIK there is no
> GC> standard grammar for "declspec" that works for every compiler, so this
> GC> is deep magic and the less voodoo we use the better.
> 
>  There is no standard, but in practice all compilers support either MSVC
> __declspec(dll{ex,im}port) or gcc __attribute__((dll{ex,im}port)), so it's
> not like it's difficult to cover all cases.

We're talking about two different things. Certainly there's a well-defined,
unambiguous lexicon--a dual one, or two orthogonal ones. And there's a
"grammar" of sorts in the sense that we can generally write it meaningfully.
But I don't think anyone has reduced it to BNF (e.g.), and in that sense
there is no standard grammar--thus, wx's *_FWD macros follow different rules
for gcc vs. ms, because their grammars differ. And if we take gcc's implicit
grammar to encompass its pedantic warnings as well as its effect on linkage,
I'm not sure it's self-consistent.