aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tidy/fuchsia/AddVisibilityCheck.cpp:68 + diag(MatchedDecl->getLocStart(), + "visibility attribute not set for specified function") + << MatchedDecl ---------------- jakehehrlich wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > How about: "function expected to be annotated with '%0' visibility" > > > > I'm mostly worried about the case where the function has a visibility > > attribute, but it has the *wrong* visibility specified. The current wording > > would be confusing in that circumstance. Or is that not a scenario you care > > about, just that *any* visibility is specified on the function? > The use case for this check is forcing code bases to carefully control what > symbols are exported rather than just exporting everything. So if someone > took the time to explicitly set the visibility of one of these symbols we > care about then we should assume they knew what they were doing. > > The specific use case I care about for this check is using > -fvisibility=hidden and then checking to make sure a certain curated list of > symbols has explicit default visibility. Ah, so a mismatch is unimportant, that's good to know. How about: "function expected to be annotated with the 'visibility' attribute"? https://reviews.llvm.org/D43392 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
