dblaikie added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/unique-internal-linkage-names-dwarf.c:34-39
+static int go(a) int a;
+{
+ return glob + a;
+}
+
+
----------------
hoy wrote:
> dblaikie wrote:
> > Does this need to be down here? Or would the code be a well exercised if it
> > was up next to the go declaration above?
> Yes, it needs to be here. Otherwise it will just like the function `bar`
> above that doesn't get a uniquefied name. I think moving the definition up to
> right after the declaration hides the declaration.
Not sure I follow - do you mean that if the go declaration and go definition
were next to each other, this test would (mechanically speaking) not validate
what the patch? Or that it would be less legible, but still mechanically
correct?
I think it would be (assuming it's still mechanically correct) more legible to
put the declaration next to the definition - the comment describes why the
declaration is significant/why the definition is weird, and seeing all that
together would be clearer to me than spreading it out/having to look further
away to see what's going on.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98799/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98799
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
