dblaikie added a comment.
In D121328#3396984 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D121328#3396984>, @aaron.ballman
wrote:
>> once we figure out what to do about the change in behavior for
>> -Wnon-c-typedef-for-linkage
>
> The devil is in the details; I'm not sure what to do here. I don't think
> there's a way to compute the visibility without also computing the linkage,
> so I don't think there's a way to get the old behavior in the Chrome OS case
> as well as suppressing the diagnostic in the case you want to cover. I'm
> sympathetic to the issue, but this may be a case where it's a matter of
> picking which behavior is more important because we may not be able to have
> both (at least, not without work to tease apart linkage and visibility if
> that's possible).
Ah, fair. To /me/ it doesn't feel like `typedef struct { void f() { } } x;` is
something we /really/ need to support, but clearly some code does use this, but
it should be relatively cheap/simple to migrate away from that idiom and make
the code more C++ idiomatic/simpler. But maybe there's some huge legacy of code
using this idiom, such that breaking it would be costly. Don't really know.
@rsmith maybe you've got an idea of whether this (C-style
typedef/name-for-linkage purposes with structs with member functions) is worth
supporting?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D121328/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D121328
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
