urnathan added a comment. In D122119#3398949 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122119#3398949>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > The first feeling I saw the change is that not every C++ programmer knows > about linkage. OK, it depends on the environment really and every one might > has their own opinion. You may be confusing object-file linkage with the linkage concepts of C++, which are specified in [basic.link]? Sadly we have to live with the overloaded term. > Another thought is that 10.2.6 (http://eel.is/c++draft/module.interface#6) > doesn't talk anything about linkage: > >> A redeclaration of an entity X is implicitly exported if X was introduced by >> an exported declaration; otherwise it shall not be exported. > > So it looks like confusing to talk about linkage this time. In my > imagination, there might be a such situation: > > A programmer met the error when he tries to export a redeclaration which is > internal linkage (maybe a simple const variable). Then the message told him > the internal linkage is not allowed to re-export. Then he removes the const > specifier. Now he meets the error again. It tells that we couldn't export > redeclaration which is module linkage. I guess he would feel bad. Then he > might try to export the first declaration to get passed. However, the `const` > specifier is lost in the case. And in the current message, I guess he would > add export to the first declaration directly after he reads the message. further, with attachment, the original error 'cannot export as previous was not exported' is not correct in general. Consider: module; // Pretend this is from #include, ok? void Foo (); module bob; extern "C++" export void Foo (); // can export even though prior was not exported Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122119/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122119 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
