Le 15 août 2012 à 21:10, jahanian <[email protected]> a écrit :
> > 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. Would be fine if radar where visible by the user. Unfortunately, this is not the case… -- Jean-Daniel
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
