rsmith added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53787#1282995, @mcgrathr wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53787#1282975, @rsmith wrote:
>
> > Other symbols must have exactly one definition (modulo the permission for
> > duplicate identical definitions for some cases), but these ones ha
mcgrathr added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53787#1282975, @rsmith wrote:
> These symbols really are special. Other symbols are introduced explicitly by
> a declaration, whereas these are declared implicitly by the compiler.
The implicit declaration is the only difference that actua
rsmith added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53787#1282930, @mcgrathr wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53787#1279899, @rsmith wrote:
>
> > Replacing the global new and delete is supposed to be a whole-program
> > operation (you only get one global allocator). Otherwise you couldn't
mcgrathr added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53787#1279899, @rsmith wrote:
> Replacing the global new and delete is supposed to be a whole-program
> operation (you only get one global allocator). Otherwise you couldn't
> allocate memory in one DSO and deallocate it in another. (And no
rsmith added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53787#1279913, @phosek wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53787#1279899, @rsmith wrote:
>
> > Replacing the global new and delete is supposed to be a whole-program
> > operation (you only get one global allocator). Otherwise you couldn't
>
phosek added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D53787#1279899, @rsmith wrote:
> Replacing the global new and delete is supposed to be a whole-program
> operation (you only get one global allocator). Otherwise you couldn't
> allocate memory in one DSO and deallocate it in another. (And nor
rsmith requested changes to this revision.
rsmith added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Replacing the global new and delete is supposed to be a whole-program operation
(you only get one global allocator). Otherwise you couldn't allocate memory in
one DSO and deallocate
rnk added a comment.
This seems pretty inconsistent with how -fvisibility=hidden behaves with
normal, user written declarations. Consider this code:
void foo();
void bar() { foo(); }
We get this IR:
$ clang -S -emit-llvm --target=x86_64-linux t.c -o - -fvisibility=hidden
...
define h
phosek created this revision.
phosek added reviewers: rsmith, rnk.
Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
When the global new and delete operators aren't declared, Clang
provides and implicit declaration, but this declaration currently
always uses the default visibility. This is a problem when th
