only using the linkage.
Use and test both, documenting that considering the visibility and linkage
of template parameters is a difference from gcc.
llvm-svn: 158309
struct HIDDEN foo {
};
template <class P>
struct bar {
};
template <>
struct HIDDEN bar<foo> {
DEFAULT static void zed();
};
void bar<foo>::zed() {
}
Before we would produce a hidden symbol in
struct HIDDEN foo {
};
template <class P>
struct bar {
};
template <>
struct bar<foo> {
DEFAULT static void zed();
};
void bar<foo>::zed() {
}
But adding HIDDEN to the specialization would cause us to produce a default
symbol.
llvm-svn: 157206
* Don't copy the visibility attribute during instantiations. We have to be able
to distinguish
struct HIDDEN foo {};
template<class T>
DEFAULT void bar() {}
template DEFAULT void bar<foo>();
from
struct HIDDEN foo {};
template<class T>
DEFAULT void bar() {}
template void bar<foo>();
* If an instantiation has an attribute, it takes precedence over an attribute
in the template.
* With instantiation attributes handled with the above logic, we can now
select the minimum visibility when looking at template arguments.
llvm-svn: 156821
the tempale arguments in deciding the visibility.
This agrees with gcc 4.7.
Found by trying to build chrome with component=shared_library with 155314
reverted.
llvm-svn: 155316
This fixes the included testcase and lets us simplify the code a bit. It
does require using mergeWithMin when merging class information to its
members. Expand the comments to explain why that works.
llvm-svn: 155103
an explicit default one. This means that with -fvisibility hidden we
now produce a hidden symbol for
template <typename T>
class DEFAULT foo {
void bar() {}
};
class zed {};
template class foo<zed>;
This matches the behaviour of gcc 4.7.
llvm-svn: 155102
* Handle some situations where we should never make a decl more visible,
even when merging in an explicit visibility.
* Handle attributes in members of classes that are explicitly specialized.
Thanks Nico for the report and testing, Eric for the initial review, and dgregor
for the awesome test27 :-)
llvm-svn: 151236
With that, centralize the way we merge visibility, always preferring explicit over
implicit and then picking the most restrictive one.
Fixes pr10113 and pr11690.
llvm-svn: 148163
computing for a nested decl with explicit visibility. This is all part
of the general philosophy of explicit visibility attributes, where
any information that was obviously available at the attribute site
should probably be ignored. Fixes PR9371.
llvm-svn: 126992
with their own explicit visibility attributes. Basically we only want to
apply a single visibility attribute from any particular ancestry.
llvm-svn: 117998
independently of whether they're definitions, then teach IR generation to
ignore non-explicit visibility when emitting declarations. Use this to
make sure that RTTI, vtables, and VTTs get the right visibility.
More of rdar://problem/8613093
llvm-svn: 117781
whether it's a declaration or not, then ignores that information for
declarations unless it was explicitly given. It's not totally clear
how that should be mapped into a sane system, but make an effort.
llvm-svn: 117780
for namespace-scope variable declarations.
Apply visibility in IR gen to variables that are merely declared
and never defined. We were previously emitting these with default
visibility unless they were declared with private_extern.
Ignore global visibility settings when computing visibility for
a declaration's context, and key several conditions on whether a
visibility attribute exists anywhere in the hierarchy as opposed
to whether it exists at the current level.
llvm-svn: 117729
and never defined. We were previously emitting these with default
visibility unless they were declared with private_extern.
Ignore global visibility settings when computing visibility for
a declaration's context, and key several conditions on whether a
visibility attribute exists anywhere in the hierarchy as opposed
to whether it exists at the current level.
llvm-svn: 117644
Rafael Espindola