On Aug 15, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: > > On Aug 15, 2012, at 11:58 , jahanian <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 15, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Jordan Rose wrote: >> >>> What is the unexpected behavior? Or what will it not do that I would expect >>> it to do? (I forget what __private_extern__ is actually for.) >>> >>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 11:42 , Fariborz Jahanian <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Depending on __private_extern__ decl. being in header file or main file, >> visibility attribute may or may not show up in the >> generated code (and it may not be a tentative definition). See the radar for >> why Nick thinks this warning is needed to >> get us out of the jam for this gcc compatible behavior. > > I think what I was trying to say is that the warning should be a little more > explanatory. I don't have an alternative wording myself, though.
I tried to make the warning as long and explanatory as possible. But, user may have to read the radar's long description to see the rational for the warning. But, feel free if you can improve on the message. - fariborz
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
