c# adding [DllExport] feature

[Eugen1344]

I am sure that c# need [DllExport("Foo")] attribute that will compile to .export [1] as Foo in IL code. So we will be able to export functions to unmanaged code to make posibility to write libraries for c++ for example.

[Eugen1344]

Currently we need to decompile library, add .export directive and compile it back again. It is quite annoying

[HaloFour]

This would be an interesting feature. I've only somewhat messed around with exporting methods like this from an assembly. If I recall this method was fraught with caveats concerning how and when the framework is loaded, and it also produces unverifiable assemblies. We ended up going with exporting COM-callable classes instead.

[Eugen1344]

Even IL have this feature. Why c# doesn't? If nobody will do it, ill do it by myself, this is not hard

[gafter]

@Eugen1344 If you prepare a pull request, please call it to my attention and I will shepherd it.

[securityvoid]

I'd love this as well. While there is a NuGet package that does this https://www.nuget.org/packages/UnmanagedExports, this is not cross-platform. If this was in the DotNet Compiler, it would thereby work on multiple OSes.

Since most code on 'nix platforms are primarily in C or C++, having this functionality added to the DotNet Core would greatly increase the flexibility and adoption on non-windows OSes. With DLLExport, for example, one should be able to write plugins for existing Linux applications and have them be agnostic of the fact it was written in C#.

Since C# is a ton easier to program in than C or C++, this should greatly increase its use on those platforms.

[bazzilic]

Any movement on this issue?

[WillFM]

ping.

[WillFM]

Hey, @jaredpar, do you mind indicating why this was closed? was the feature implemented/discarded/etc?

Thanks!

[jaredpar]

I'm in the process of going through our issue backlog and closing out stale issues. This has been largely inactive for 3+ years now and there doesn't seem to be a clear plan for it moving forward.

[WillFM]

Thanks for clearing that up. It's understandable, as currently there's not enough demand to move forward with such a feature. bit of a bummer though, still a feature I'd like to see implemented.

[sharwell]

🔗 See also dotnet/csharplang#308