On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Rafael Espíndola < [email protected]> wrote:
> > By revised rules you mean the one you proposed, making > > > > InternalLinkage VisibleNoLinkage -> NoLinkage > > UniqueExternalLinkage VisibleNoLinkage -> NoLinkage > > > > I am OK with it, but I was unable to write any testcase :-( > > The attached patch implements your proposed semantics (but keeps the > single bitfield representation, at least for now). Any ideas of a > testcase we could add? The former case goes from externally visible to not-externally-visible. You should be able to catch that by looking at the CodeGen output. The latter case goes from external linkage to no linkage. That should cause us to error if we use the address of a function with that linkage as a template argument. (I'm not 100% sure that's the right behavior, but it seems like it should be observable at least.)
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
