bd1976llvm added a comment. In D133266#3775832 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133266#3775832>, @MaskRay wrote:
> In D133266#3775384 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133266#3775384>, @MaskRay wrote: > >> In D133266#3775189 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133266#3775189>, @bd1976llvm >> wrote: >> >>> >> >> From a glance, `-fvisibility-global-new-delete-hidden` should make the >> visibility implicit (so won't trigger this error) but don't seem to do so? >> I'll investigate later. > > `-fvisibility-global-new-delete-hidden` is implemented by adding > `VisibilityAttr` to declarations. > I think `-fvisibility-global-new-delete-hidden` triggering the error is > fine. The alternative, adding a rule that `__declspec(dllexport) void > operator delete` does not get hidden visibility, seems ad-hoc to me. I'm not sure why this visibility option (`-fvisibility-global-new-delete-hidden`) is implemented differently to the others (e.g. `-fvisibility=hidden`)? `__declspec(dllexport) void operator delete` does not get hidden visibility, might be difficult to implement; but OTOH, the dllstorageclass overrides the visibility set by a visibility option for the other visibility options (e.g. -fvisibility=hidden) and it would be nice to have consistent behaviour for all the visibility options. Would be great to get other peoples opinions on whether an error here would be a problem? > I think the only needed change is to allow dllexport protected, but then we > probably need two diagnostics. Perhaps `diag::err_hidden_visiblity_dllexport` > and `diag::err_non_default_visibility_dllimport`? SGTM! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D133266/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D133266 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
