iains added a comment. In D122119#3400267 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122119#3400267>, @dblaikie wrote:
> SOrry, I don't have much context here - the more informative (module/internal > linkage) diagnostic does seem better to me than saying "is not exported", > even if it's a bit esoteric for some users. We do have other diagnostics that > mention linkage, I'm sure (because it's necessary/useful to describe certain > things). > > Without much context on this patch: is the diagnostic change a necessary part > of the patch? (is the diagnostic new regardless of which wording option is > chosen? or is this affecting an existing diagnostic?) - if it's possible to > separate the diagnostic change from the rest of the patch that's probably a > good thing to do regardless of the choice. If not, yeah, I think going with > the more explicit/nuanced diagnostic wording seems better to me at a glance. The diagnostic change was made so that the test cases introduced by the patch could have (diagnostic) wording that reflected the examples in the standard. As such, it seemed reasonable to make the change at the same time. I can split it out of course if that still seems better given the clarification. 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
