ChuanqiXu added a comment. From the discussion, it looks like the 'export' part is not necessary here and we don't need to care about linkage in this revision.
In D128328#3609827 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128328#3609827>, @vsapsai wrote: > Sorry for changing my mind. I've thought about the errors more and especially > about the case mentioned by Chuanqi > > export module A; > [export] inline void func(); > > I'm afraid it can complicate the implementation but we can achieve some > consistency with errors like > > export module A; > export inline void func(); // error: no definition for exported inline > function 'func' in module 'A' > > and > > export module A; > export inline void func(); // error: no definition for exported inline > function 'func' in module 'A' > //... > module :private; > void func() {} // note: definition here is not reachable as it is private > > I think it is useful to have connection between declaration and definition > and to explain why the definition is no good. > > Specific wording around "no definition | missing definition | definition > required" is flexible. It makes sense to me. 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
