aaron.ballman added a comment.
In D133088#3782126 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133088#3782126>, @pmor13 wrote:
> @aaron.ballman
>
>> block scope variable to have *internal* linkage instead of *no* linkage
>
> static int x;
>
> void f(void)
> {
> extern int x; // block scope, internal linkage
> }
No, I understood that, I meant in terms of the semantics. I'm not 100%
convinced there's a way to *observe* the difference between no and internal
linkage, but I *think* you might be able to observe it regarding an inline
function returning the address of an internal linkage variable. If it's
internal linkage, every copy of the function shares the same object but if it
had no linkage, the linker wouldn't have to collapse them all down to the same
object (maybe?).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D133088/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D133088
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
