smeenai added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D25208#564930, @EricWF wrote:
> Why do you want to build `libc++.so` with hidden visibility? What's wrong
> with the existing way we build `libc++.so`?
There's nothing wrong with the existing way, per se. I personally prefer hidden
visibility semantics because I come from a Windows background and hidden
visibility matches up well with DLL semantics, but the first section of
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Visibility covers the advantages of hidden visibility
cfe-commits mailing list