urnathan added a comment.
In D120397#3340256 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120397#3340256>, @erichkeane
wrote:
> Linkage stuff is where I get lost quickly, hopefully @urnathan can comment
> here. Codewise I think this looks right.
looks right to me too -- take the linkage from the most general template.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Modules/inconsist-export-template.cpp:1-2
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++20 %s -fsyntax-only -verify
+// expected-no-diagnostics
+export module m;
----------------
dblaikie wrote:
> This test doesn't appear to test anything - it verifies that this file
> produces no diagnostics, but not that it has any other/particular behavior.
>
> Should this be testing codegen to verify that the correct linkage was used on
> the resulting IR functions?
>
> Are there other ways of observing the particular language-level linkage of
> the entities to confirm it's as expected?
yes, this should be a codegen test
(clang/test/CodeGenCXX/Modules/cxx20-$something.cpp?
================
Comment at: clang/test/Modules/inconsist-export-template.cpp:19-23
+// FIXME: We should reject following specialization,
+// since it tries to export a name which is already introduced.
+export template <>
+void f1<int>() {
+
----------------
I don't think we should be testing for ill-formed code here. We want to verify
that explicit instantiations, explicit specializations and implicit
instantiations all get the expected linkage -- both external linkage on
exported entities, module linkage on non-exported module-purview entities.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120397/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D120397
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
