On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:29 PM, jahanian <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Jean-Daniel Dupas wrote: > > > 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… > > > Oops. I was referring to Jordan, who has access to radars. A more detailed > explanation can go into the man page (is there one for clang?). > The diagnostic message should be sufficient for a typical user to have some idea of what is wrong. The current diagnostic does not meet this standard. If you explain in a bit more detail what the problem is, maybe someone will be able to come up with better diagnostic wording. In any case, diagnostic messages should not start with a capital letter.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
