hamzasood added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D37182#855262, @smeenai wrote:
> The other question, of course, is why the experimental library needs to be > static. If it were built shared, the annotations would just work on Windows > in theory (though I'm sure there are other issues there). Even if libc++experimental is no longer forced to be static, it'd probably be too restrictive to force libc++ and libc++experimental to be the same library type. E.g. someone might want a dynamic libc++ but a static libc++experimental. If that's possible (even if not by default), different visibility macros will be needed. ================ Comment at: include/experimental/__config:57 +#if defined(_LIBCPP_OBJECT_FORMAT_COFF) +# define _LIBCPPX_TYPE_VIS ---------------- smeenai wrote: > I think it would make more sense to make these macros empty on all platforms, > not just Windows. It's true that they'll only cause link errors on Windows > (since you'll attempt to dllimport functions from a static library), but on > ELF and Mach-O, the visibility annotations would cause these functions to be > exported from whatever library c++experimental gets linked into, which is > probably not desirable either. > > The exception (if you'll pardon the pun) is `_LIBCPPX_EXCEPTION_ABI`, which > will still need to expand to at least `__type_visibility__((default))` for > non-COFF in order for throwing and catching those types to work correctly. I might be mistaken, but I think the regular libc++ library still uses visibility annotations when it's being built as a static library on non-Windows platforms. So I figured it'd be best to match that behaviour. https://reviews.llvm.org/D37182 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
