bd1976bris wrote: Thanks for the responses.
> The meaning that we want to make clear is that this toggles the special > behavior of forcing the visibility of these symbols despite all the other > mechanisms that usually control visibility for all other symbols. Agreed. I'm in favour of your suggestion of `-f[no-]forced-global-new-delete-visibility`. Including "forced" in the option name makes it clear that something unusual is going on here and hints that this is going to take precedence over other sources of visibility. I did consider that it might be better to rearrange your suggested option name a bit to `-f[no-]visibility-global-new-delete-forced` to group with other visibility options that start with `-fvisibility`, but `-f[no-]forced-global-new-delete-visibility` is much clearer. @petrhosek I did consider `-f[no-]visibility-attribute-global-new-delete` but that naming is possibly tied a bit too strongly to the current implementation in the complier - so I think I like the `forced` suggestion better? > (The `=...` variant of the positive form would permit forcing to a different > visibility than `default`, though I'm not sure there's a real need for that > capability since in `-fno-forced-...` state the usual pragmas et al can > arrange for that.) Indeed and the use of the usual pragmas etc is preferable, IMO, as users are already familiar with those - as opposed to the effects of an unusual/niche option. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75364 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
