ldionne added a comment.
ABI-wise, I think this change is OK. Indeed, if `__type_visibility__` is not
supported, we're already marking the base template as
`__visibility__("default")`, so marking the extern template declaration with
`__visibility__("default")` is not a problem. If `__type_visibility__` is
supported, then there's no change in behavior. So I think there is no change in
behavior either way, and I'm actually wondering why @thomasanderson wants this
change in if the behavior is always the same. Perhaps I am missing something?
As a diversion, I'm confused by the very fact that we need to apply
`_LIBCPP_EXTERN_TEMPLATE_TYPE_VIS` to the _extern template declaration_. I
would have expected instead that, if anything, we need to specify the
visibility on the _explicit instantiation_ in the dylib.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D35388
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
