pcc added inline comments. ================ Comment at: docs/ClassScope.rst:2 @@ +1,3 @@ +=========== +Class Scope +=========== ---------------- rsmith wrote: > Can you use some word other than "scope" here? "Class scope" is already a > term of art in C++, meaning something completely different. I think what > you're referring to is exactly the visibility of the class (in the ELF sense). Yes, this is pretty much visibility. I wanted to avoid using the term "visibility" because I'm introducing flags and attributes which can make scope mean something different to object file visibility, so I wanted to avoid the overload to avoid confusion.
Maybe the overloading would help with understanding though if I add a qualifying adjective. This is all about whether all derived classes are visible, so maybe the right term is something like "derived visibility"? ================ Comment at: docs/ClassScope.rst:13 @@ +12,3 @@ +to a single linkage unit (i.e. the executable or DSO). It is effectively an +ODR violation to declare classes with linkage-unit scope in multiple linkage +units. Classes with global scope may be defined in multiple linkage units, ---------------- rsmith wrote: > classes -> a class > > Otherwise this reads like you're saying at most one linkage unit per program > can declare classes with linkage-unit scope. Will do ================ Comment at: docs/ClassScope.rst:14 @@ +13,3 @@ +ODR violation to declare classes with linkage-unit scope in multiple linkage +units. Classes with global scope may be defined in multiple linkage units, +but the tradeoff is that the virtual function call optimization and control ---------------- rsmith wrote: > Classes -> A class Will do ================ Comment at: docs/ClassScope.rst:23 @@ +22,3 @@ + + - ``-fdefault-class-scope=attrs`` indicates that the compiler will infer + class scope based on platform-specific attributes that control the class's ---------------- eugenis wrote: > Maybe call it "default"? Attrs sounds too specific. Basically this setting > lets clang figure out scope based on the source code. `-fdefault-class-scope=default`? Sounds a little stuttery. Although `attrs` isn't entirely accurate (it's also affected by flags), it's close enough I reckon. ================ Comment at: docs/ClassScope.rst:28 @@ +27,3 @@ + or the ``-fvisibility=hidden -fvisibility-inlines-hidden`` flags) + receive global scope, and all others receive linkage-unit scope. When + targeting Windows, classes with the ``__declspec(dllexport)`` or ---------------- eugenis wrote: > hidden visibility = linkage-unit scope, not global scope. Yes, I somehow completely screwed up the sense of these, even in the Windows part. Will fix. http://reviews.llvm.org/D18635 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
