rnk added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/Clang.cpp:5244
+ false))
+ CmdArgs.push_back("-fvisibility-inlines-hidden");
+
----------------
takuto.ikuta wrote:
> hans wrote:
> > takuto.ikuta wrote:
> > > hans wrote:
> > > > Huh, does this actually affect whether functions get dllexported or not?
> > > Sorry, what you want to ask?
> > >
> > > This will used to not add dllexport attr in L5690 of SemaDeclCXX.cpp.
> > >
> > Oops, I didn't see that. I'm glad to see this is looking so simple :-)
> >
> > Actually, I don't think we should the same flag name for this, since
> > "hidden" is an ELF concept, not a COFF one, just that we should match the
> > behaviour of the flag.
> >
> > Hmm, or do people use -fvisibility-inlines-hidden on MinGW or something?
> > Where does the hidden-dllimport.cpp file come from?
> >
> > Also, is it the case that -fvisibility-inlines-hidden just ignores the
> > problem of static local variables? If that's the case we can probably do it
> > too, we just have to be sure, and document it eventually.
> >
> I confirmed that -fvisibility-inlines-hidden treats local static var
> correctly in linux.
> So I'm trying to export inline functions if it has local static variables.
This sounds like it would be really hard in general, since you can hide static
locals almost anywhere:
```
struct Foo {
static int foo() {
return ([]() { static int x; return ++x; })();
}
};
```
Can we reuse the RecursiveASTVisitor @hans added to check if we can emit
dllimport inline functions as available_externally definitions? I think it will
find exactly the circumstances we are looking for, i.e. export all the things
that cannot be emitted inline in other DLLs.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51340
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
