hamzasood added a comment. Thanks. Could someone commit this for me please?
================ Comment at: include/experimental/__config:57 +#if defined(_LIBCPP_OBJECT_FORMAT_COFF) +# define _LIBCPPX_TYPE_VIS ---------------- compnerd wrote: > hamzasood wrote: > > 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. > It's not about matching that behaviour, libc++ is built shared, this is built > static. The static link marked default visibility would make the functions > be re-exported. However, if I'm not mistaken, this already happens today, so > fixing that in a follow-up is fine as the status quo is maintained. But isn't it possible to build libc++ as static instead of shared? (LIBCXX_ENABLE_STATIC=YES and LIBCXX_ENABLE_SHARED=NO). I'm pretty sure that in that case, the visibility annotations are left active. https://reviews.llvm.org/D37182 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
