> Well, improper use of italics aside, my view is that that rule does *not* > define when an entity has external linkage. Instead, that text is describing > a consequence of the declaration having external linkage (and by "can be > referred to" it really means "you don't need to block identical entities in > different translation units from linking together"). > > I do agree that the standard may not say what we want here, and isn't > completely clear; I filed core issue 1602 for that a few months ago for > exactly that. However, it's not been decided by CWG yet, and since (AFAICT) > it would only affect which diagnostics are mandatory and it would make > 'linkage' much more expensive to compute, there's a good chance that they'll > say it's NAD.
I am not sure I follow the "more expensive" argument. Any compiler (as opposed to a theoretical tool that just checks if a string is valid c++) will have to compute something like the linkage we compute, no? > You should also be aware of core issue 1603, which brings the linkage rules > more into line with how we behave. Cheers, Rafael _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
