smeenai added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/__config:719
@@ -718,3 +718,3 @@
#else // _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_STRONG_ENUMS
-#define _LIBCPP_DECLARE_STRONG_ENUM(x) enum class _LIBCPP_TYPE_VIS x
+#define _LIBCPP_DECLARE_STRONG_ENUM(x) enum class _LIBCPP_TYPE_VIS_ONLY x
#define _LIBCPP_DECLARE_STRONG_ENUM_EPILOG(x)
----------------
compnerd wrote:
> I don't think that this is right. On non-Windows, this would potentially
> expand out to `__attribute__ (( __type_visibility__ ("default") ))`. I don't
> believe that `enum classes` have anything like RTTI associated with them, so
> we don't really want type visibility for that.
Good point. Should I just drop the visibility macro entirely then?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D24065
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
