Krishna-13-cyber added a comment. In D147888#4466998 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D147888#4466998>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I think the existing wording is pretty reasonable, changing "non-static > declaration" into "extern declaration" isn't really giving the user any more > information to help them resolve the issue. "please pick exactly one" doesn't > seem likely to help the user either -- they already know there's a conflict, > so picking one is already the solution the user is likely to have in mind. > The hard part for the user is with figuring which one to pick, but we have no > way to help them make that choice. So I'm not certain changes are needed in > this space (I'm not opposed either), but I do think the idea @cjdb had to > combine all these diagnostics into one using `%select` could be helpful. > However, there are enough options that it could also be pretty complex to > reason about. There's static, extern, and thread-local, as well as "non-" > versions of each of those, so there are quite a few combinations. Yes I agree with this, Changing the whole set of diagnostics will be quite challenging, but I think `extern` has an edge over `non-static` declaration when we are able to see the diagnostics in gcc if are not going with the `pick-exactly one` convention. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D147888/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D147888 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
