On 10 June 2013 19:08, Rafael Espíndola <[email protected]> wrote: > Richard pointed out on IRC that the patch should look at the > redeclaration context to avoid problems with one of the functions > being in a extern "C++". Implementing that found some interesting > problems. Consider > > extern "C" { > static void foo(int x); > static void foo() { > } > void foo(int x) { > } > } > > This should be valid, since both functions have internal linkage and > therefore none of them has C language linkage. Commenting the first > declaration makes the code invalid as now the last one is extern C and > [dcl.link] p6 kicks in. This means we have to do "normal" overload > resolution first to see if the last decl we are looking at has C > language linkage or not.
BTW, is this sufficient evidence that we should just give static functions C language linkage? I just checked http://gcc.godbolt.org/ and gcc 4.8 and icc 13 (which is edg based, no?), reject extern "C" { static void foo() { } static void foo(int x) { } } We are putting quiet a bit of effort to make sure we accept it and I still can't see the value. Cheers, Rafael _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
