rjmccall added a comment. In D60967#1476057 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60967#1476057>, @scott.linder wrote:
> In D60967#1476029 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60967#1476029>, @rjmccall wrote: > > > Shouldn't it be an error if the user tries to give it hidden visibility? > > > We effectively consider the user explicitly specifying that a symbol is e.g. > a `kernel` to also carry with it visibility information. We don't want to > require the user to redundantly specify that a kernel is not hidden, when it > is never meaningful for it to be hidden. I understand, but if the user explicitly gives it hidden visibility, you should still diagnose that. Also, shouldn't you just handle this by treating the kernel attribute as a source of explicit visibility at the Sema/AST level? Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D60967/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D60967 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
