iains added a comment. In D128328#3603942 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128328#3603942>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:
> In D128328#3603940 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128328#3603940>, @iains wrote: > >> In D128328#3602646 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128328#3602646>, @iains wrote: >> >>> In D128328#3601080 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128328#3601080>, @ChuanqiXu >>> wrote: >>> >>>> It looks like we need to handle inline variable as well to match the >>>> intention. >>> >>> can you construct a test-case, where this would apply and which is not >>> already diagnosed as incorrect? >> >> Did you have some ideas here? > > The test may be something like: > > export module A; > inline int a; > module :private > int a = 0; // expected-error but we reject this at the moment with "redefinition of 'a'" - so that implies we do not have fully correct C++17 handling here? > But I feel like we couldn't go on before we get response from WG21. Agreed, and anyway I think we would want to add a new test case, not to amend the example from the std (otherwise that becomes confusing as well) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128328/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128328 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits