andreybokhanko added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15686#325266, @rnk wrote:
> I thought we already addressed this issue with @rjmccall and decided that, if
> the user intentionally declares extern "C" variables with an _Z prefix, then
> we know they are intentionally attempting to name some C++ global variable.
>
> I'd rather just warn on all extern "C" declarations starting with _Z, and let
> users keep the pieces when things break.
That doesn't contradicts my patch at all. See the test -- where there is one
declaration and one definition:
// We expect no warnings here, as there is only declaration of _ZN2nm3abcE
// global, no definitions.
extern "C" {
int _ZN2nm3abcE;
}
namespace nm {
float abc = 2;
}
// CHECK: @_ZN2nm3abcE = global float
nothing bad happens.
But if there are two definitions:
extern "C" {
int _ZN2nm3abcE = 1; // expected-note {{previous definition is here}}
}
namespace nm {
float abc = 2; // expected-error {{definition with same mangled name as
another definition}}
}
an error is printed, as it should be.
Here is what John wrote himself (http://reviews.llvm.org/D11297#211351):
"I disagree with the conclusions in that thread (and wish you had CC'ed me; I
unfortunately do not have time to keep up with cfe-dev). There is roughly zero
chance that somebody is declaring an extern "C" symbol with a name that matches
an Itanium mangled name with any intent other than to name that entity. We
should not be rejecting this code or silently renaming one of the symbols. We
should, of course, still diagnose attempts to *define* the same symbol multiple
times."
John, may I ask you to take a look at this patch and confirm (or deny :-)) that
it follows your understanding of how things should be?
Yours,
Andrey
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15686
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
