dblaikie added a comment. In D102356#2761010 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102356#2761010>, @hoy wrote:
> In D102356#2760973 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102356#2760973>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >> In D102356#2758371 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102356#2758371>, @hoy wrote: >> >>> In D102356#2758179 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D102356#2758179>, @dblaikie >>> wrote: >>> >>>> This was previously crashing, I guess? Testing should validate the >>>> behavior beyond the crash, though - (presumably there's some more specific >>>> behavior than "does not crash" that wasn't being tested for before - that >>>> certain names are mangled appropriately or what-have-you) >>> >>> Yes, an assert was triggered related to c++ constructors/destructors while >>> it's not now. Regarding the behavior, c++ constructors/destructors are not >>> static, so I don't expect a behavior change. >> >> ctors/dtors can have internal linkage, if the type has internal linkage (if >> it's in an anonymous namespace) - but in any case, my point was that there's >> some specific behavior you're expecting, even if that behavior is "does not >> get this attribute" - previously no code tested that with this feature >> enabled the ctor wouldn't get the attribute (because it couldn't've tested >> that, because what it did was crash) - so testing that would be good. >> >> But testing the attribute does work on the ctor of a type in an anonymous >> namespace would be suitable too. > > Good to know that ctors/dtors can have internal linkage. How do you get that? > The C++ standard doesn't allow ctors to be static. Placing the type within an anonymous namespace should do the trick, something like this: https://godbolt.org/z/8YMWhbWM8 Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D102356/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D102356 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
