hans added a comment.
The static local stuff still makes me nervous. How much does Chromium break if
we just ignore the problem? And how does -fvisibility-inlines-hidden handle the
issue?
Also, Sema already has a check for static locals in C inline functions:
$ echo "inline void f() { static int x; }" | bin/clang -c -x c -
<stdin>:1:19: warning: non-constant static local variable in inline function
may be different in different files [-Wstatic-local-in-inline]
inline void f() { static int x; }
^
could we reuse that check somehow for this case with static locals in dllexport
inline methods?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:12624
+ isa<CXXMethodDecl>(D)) {
+ CXXMethodDecl *MD = dyn_cast<CXXMethodDecl>(D);
+ CXXRecordDecl *Class = MD->getParent();
----------------
Hmm, now we're adding an AST walk over all inline methods which probably slows
us down a bit. Not sure I have any better ideas though.
In any case, ActOnFinishInlineFunctionDef needs a comment explaining why it's
doing this.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp:5702
+ !getLangOpts().DllExportInlines &&
+ Class->getTemplateSpecializationKind() !=
TSK_ExplicitInstantiationDeclaration &&
+ Class->getTemplateSpecializationKind() !=
TSK_ExplicitInstantiationDefinition) {
----------------
What worries me is that now we have logic in two different places about
inheriting the dll attribute.
The new place in ActOnFinishInlineFunctionDef doesn't have the same checks
(checking for MS ABI and the template specialization kind) which means the
logic for when to inherit is already a little out of sync...
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51340
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
