hoy added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeGen/unique-internal-linkage-names-dwarf.c:34-39
+static int go(a) int a;
+{
+ return glob + a;
+}
+
+
----------------
dblaikie wrote:
> hoy wrote:
> > dblaikie wrote:
> > > Does this need to be down here? Or would the code be a well exercised if
> > > it was up next to the go declaration above?
> > Yes, it needs to be here. Otherwise it will just like the function `bar`
> > above that doesn't get a uniquefied name. I think moving the definition up
> > to right after the declaration hides the declaration.
> Not sure I follow - do you mean that if the go declaration and go definition
> were next to each other, this test would (mechanically speaking) not validate
> what the patch? Or that it would be less legible, but still mechanically
> correct?
>
> I think it would be (assuming it's still mechanically correct) more legible
> to put the declaration next to the definition - the comment describes why the
> declaration is significant/why the definition is weird, and seeing all that
> together would be clearer to me than spreading it out/having to look further
> away to see what's going on.
When the `go` declaration and `go` definition were next to each other, the go
function won't get a uniqufied name at all. The declaration will be overwritten
by the definition. Only when the declaration is seen by others, such the
callsite in `baz`, the declaration makes a difference by having the callsite
use a uniqufied name.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98799/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98799
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
