rjmccall wrote:
Can we just ignore template parameters selectively when we have a visibility
attribute, the way I suggested in https://reviews.llvm.org/D154774? To quote:
> A visibility attribute on an explicit specialization or instantiation should
> definitely override everything else. A v
https://github.com/MaskRay updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/72092
>From 401af7b4eabe92c8264c722a3f1181875da18438 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Fangrui Song
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2023 23:22:50 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Ignore template parameter visibility
When computing the visib
MaskRay wrote:
Thanks for the comment. Frankly, I am at a loss in deriving a criterion (for
shouldConsiderTemplateVisibility) to select one of the following rules.
(1) factor in both template arguments and template parameters
(2) factor in only template arguments
(3) factor in nothing.
Could y
rjmccall wrote:
> I cannot figure out a test case for `TemplateArgument::Expression`. I wonder
> whether it applies to `X<&s.s> x5;` (address of static member), which Clang
> doesn't support.
It's primarily used as a dependent template argument. I'm not sure off-hand
that it's *never* canoni
MaskRay wrote:
> > After the change, does it seem more feasible to ignore template parameters?
>
> Hmm. You're right that considering the type of a non-type template argument
> would be enough to give the right visibility to my example. It would not be
> enough if the template was used as a te
rjmccall wrote:
The basic design idea behind Clang's visibility model is to treat hidden
visibility as essentially a second grade of external linkage, external to the
translation unit but internal to the linkage unit (i.e. image). So what you
pointed out about using an anonymous namespace is
https://github.com/MaskRay created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/72092
When computing the visibility of a template
specialization/instantiation, GCC considers template arguments and
ignores type template parameters.
We currently consider non-type template parameters, which adds a lo
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Fangrui Song (MaskRay)
Changes
When computing the visibility of a template
specialization/instantiation, GCC considers template arguments and
ignores type template parameters.
We currently consider non-type template parameters, which adds
github-actions[bot] wrote:
:warning: C/C++ code formatter, clang-format found issues in your code.
:warning:
You can test this locally with the following command:
``bash
git-clang-format --diff e734bc53de8173a1b54493f3e0c8f70575341a9e
401af7b4eabe92c8264c722a3f1181875da18438 --
