ChuanqiXu added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaLookup.cpp:3912-3936
+ if (Visible) {
+ if (!FM)
+ break;
+ assert (D->hasLinkage() && "an imported func with no linkage?");
+ // Unless the module is a defining one for the
+ bool Ovr = true;
+ for (unsigned I = 0; I < CodeSynthesisContexts.size(); ++I) {
----------------
ChuanqiXu wrote:
> What's the intention for the change? And why is the current behavior bad
> without this?
> What's the intention for the change? And why is the current behavior bad
> without this?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaLookup.cpp:3912-3936
+ if (Visible) {
+ if (!FM)
+ break;
+ assert (D->hasLinkage() && "an imported func with no linkage?");
+ // Unless the module is a defining one for the
+ bool Ovr = true;
+ for (unsigned I = 0; I < CodeSynthesisContexts.size(); ++I) {
----------------
ChuanqiXu wrote:
> ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > What's the intention for the change? And why is the current behavior bad
> > without this?
> > What's the intention for the change? And why is the current behavior bad
> > without this?
>
>
Oh, I understand why I feel the code is not good since the decl with internal
linkage or module linkage shouldn't be visible. So even if there are problems,
we should handle them elsewhere.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145965/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D145965
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
