ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D122119#3400032 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122119#3400032>, @urnathan wrote:
> 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 I think the example is invalid since it violates [[ http://eel.is/c++draft/module.interface#6 | [module.interface]p6 ]] explicitly. If this is intended behavior or by design, we should change the wording. 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
