eugenis added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D14409#306531, @eugenis wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D14409#306379, @eugenis wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D14409#306272, @EricWF wrote: > > > > > Does the `inline` keyword have any effect when it's on function > > > definitions that are externally instantiated? > > > > > > I could not detect any difference in behavior with or without inline > > keyword. > > Remove it? > > > Actually, remove the inline breaks tests, because now the method is declared > hidden (in-class), so template instantiation in libc++.so produces a hidden > symbol. > > As an alternative, we could remove both "inline" and the in-class hidden > attribute. So, we can not remove "inline" because without it always_inline does not seem to have any effect. We can remove always_inline from the declarations, but that would add a few more exported symbols to libc++. I'll land this change as is, if you don't mind. Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D14409 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
