ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D128328#3603967 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128328#3603967>, @iains wrote:
> In D128328#3603953 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128328#3603953>, @ChuanqiXu > wrote: > >> In D128328#3603945 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128328#3603945>, @iains wrote: >> >>> 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? > > > >> I feel like the following one should be the test case: >> >> export module A; >> [export] inline int a; >> >> Here the inline variable 'a' is declared in the definition domain but not >> defined. This violates [dcl.inline]p7: >> >>> If an inline function or variable that is attached to a named module is >>> declared in a definition domain, it shall be defined in that domain. > > hmm ... isn't that implicitly initialised with 0? Oh, I just realized every declaration is a definition too except some cases: https://eel.is/c++draft/basic.def#2 And I failed to give an example that a undefined inline variable declaration attached to the named modules. I wondered: export module A; extern "C++" inline int a; extern "C++" int a = 0; But now 'a' is attached to global module instead of named modules. So I just failed to find a good example... very sorry for wasting the time >> Also, **if** [module.private.frag]p2.1 is changed into: >> >>> the point by which the definition of an [exported] inline function or >>> variable is required >> >> The test above would cover this too. >> >> BTW, it shows we could lack test like: >> >> export module A; >> [export] inline void func(); // no definition in the definition domain > > I think the current impl. should catch that - the only difference would be > that, in the case there's a definition in the PMF, there would be a note > about the unreachable definition. It looks like the current impl doesn't catch this: https://godbolt.org/z/fh9Ehfdj5 . I think I don't make mistake this time since a function declaration without function body shouldn't be a definition. 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
