C++ keyword of the day: export

The export keyword is a bit like the Higgs boson of C++. Theoretically it exists, it is described by the standard, and noone has seen it in the wild. 🙂

Before I get flamed to hell and back: that last part is not entirely true. There is 1 C++ compiler front-end in the world which actually supports it. That is the one made by EDG (Edison Design Group). This is used by Comeau which claim to have the only compiler that is 100% standards compliant and Borland (for which the support of export is a bit vague). I heard that the Intel compiler shipped with it, but I don’t know if this is true or not.

What’s all the fuss about?

It seems a bit strange that a language should contain a keyword that all compiler makers refuse to implement. Comeau has some interesting content here as does Wikipedia.

The reason that I believe ‘export’ has never really taken off is that is seems to be an significant effort to implement it, combined with the fact that is doesn’t achieve all that much. The export keyword allows a C++ programmer to declare a template class in a header, and then provide the implementation separately in a cpp file. This is the normal C++ way of doing things. Unfortunately, there’s a snag.

Template class implementations cannot be compiled on their own. Template code itself is meaningless without specification of template arguments. Thus it is that a compiler doesn’t know what to do with an implementation until the template class is used somewhere. At that point the template arguments will be known, and the compiler can compile the template class.

Since the template is only compiled then, the easiest thing to do would be to do what most compilers do now: demand that the implementation is in scope when it is used somewhere. I.e. the implementation has to be put in a header file, and that header file has to be included by the source file that is being compiled. the reason for this is that the compiler would simply not know where to look for it if the implementation was in a cpp file somewhere.

The export keyword would solve this by telling the compiler ‘Look somewhere else for the implementation’. The compiler would then have to compile the implementation for that class, and save the object code somewhere for that combination of template arguments.

The export keyword sounds like a great thing, but it doesn’t solve that many problems.

Separation of interface and implementation

The separation of interface and implementation is one of the cornerstones of C++ philosophy. The traditional way is to have the declaration in a header file, and then put the implementation in a cpp file.

Since a template implementation cannot be compiled anyway, we could just as well put it in a header file.

And then we could also make 1 header file with just the declarations, and underneath that include the header file(s) containing the implementation. The nice thing is that you can then put specializations in different headers to keep the code comprehensible.

This way we keep true to the principle of separation without needing the ‘export’ keyword


You can’t distribute template classes in a binary form, no matter whether export is supported or not.

Because templates cannot be compiled on their own, you cannot link them into a static or dynamic library. The only thing you can do is to distribute the source code.

Templates are distributed as source code. The export keyword cannot do anything about that. And if you want to distribute templates, what are you going to do? You can develop your classes using ‘export’, but then they will be usable only by a very limited subset of compilers.

If you develop your classes as if ‘export’ doesn’t exist, then they can be used by all compilers.

Of course you could do both, and use ugly macro magic to construct your code in such a way that would leave the choice to the client programmer. Some people do this. But that is kind of  ugly and time consuming. Furthermore, it’s not like it gets you any more clients, because they will be able to use your code in any case.

Compiler performance

It is true that our scheme of using header files is less efficient than using the export keyword. Without ‘export’, a template is compiled whenever it is used. You can mitigate this somewhat by including commonly used templates in a precompiled header file. But the impact will only be somewhat lessened.

And whenever an implementation detail changes, every source file which includes the template has to be recompiled. This can be a real pain in large projects.


‘export’ is facing the chicken or the egg dilemma.

‘export’ is neglected by most compiler vendors because it is not an important language feature -> You cannot use it in code that has to be portable (which is ironic, since it is a standard keyword) -> it is not used in many scenarios -> there is no large codebase depending on support for ‘export’ -> there is little incentive for compiler vendors to start supporting it.

Make no mistake: I would appreciate it if I could use ‘export’, if only because it allows me to organize my template implementations in a standard manner, but I don’t think it’ll happen soon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *