Michael Phipps <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yeah, that would work, given that no one ever calls those. > I find it to be ugly and hackish, though. It is specific to this > version of > the compiler (right? didn't they change the name mangling for 3.0?). > I am > loathe to nasty up the code for this, but I suppose I can... > > Trying it, though, leads me to another nasty problem. There is > another > missing symbol. Specifically > U BHandler::_ReservedHandler1(void) > I assume this is a virtual that Be had the need to change. It all > depends on > when the ScreenSaver was compiled. Again, I could add this symbol. > But that > starts to really bother me. Does anyone out there run some > screensaver other > than the default ones that absolutely needs it? In this case, the beauty of the code is not the issue, unfortunately. FBC is ugly and hackish, and that's just how we have to handle it. It doesn't matter that this is specific to this compiler, because this linking issue only exists in this current version of the library. We don't need to export those symbols when we intend to break binary compatibility. Bye, Axel.