[PATCH] D133266: [MinGW] Reject explicit hidden visibility applied to dllexport and hidden/protected applied to dllimport

[ben via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

bd1976llvm added a comment.

In D133266#3776164 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133266#3776164>, @MaskRay wrote:

> In D133266#3776051 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133266#3776051>, @bd1976llvm wrote:
>
>> In D133266#3775832 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133266#3775832>, @MaskRay wrote:
>>
>>> In D133266#3775384 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133266#3775384>, @MaskRay wrote:
>>>
>>>> In D133266#3775189 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D133266#3775189>, @bd1976llvm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> From a glance, `-fvisibility-global-new-delete-hidden` should make the visibility implicit (so won't trigger this error) but don't seem to do so? I'll investigate later.
>>>
>>> `-fvisibility-global-new-delete-hidden` is implemented by adding `VisibilityAttr` to declarations.
>>> I think  `-fvisibility-global-new-delete-hidden` triggering the error is fine. The alternative, adding a rule that `__declspec(dllexport) void operator delete` does not get hidden visibility, seems ad-hoc to me.
>>
>> I'm not sure why this visibility option (`-fvisibility-global-new-delete-hidden`) is implemented differently to the others (e.g. `-fvisibility=hidden`)? `__declspec(dllexport) void operator delete` does not get hidden visibility, might be difficult to implement; but OTOH, the dllstorageclass overrides the visibility set by a visibility option for the other visibility options (e.g. -fvisibility=hidden) and it would be nice to have consistent behaviour for all the visibility options. Would be great to get other peoples opinions on whether an error here would be a problem?
>
> First, does COFF use `-fvisibility-global-new-delete-hidden`? The impl of `-fvisibility-global-new-delete-hidden` is very different from -fvisibility. -fvisibility changed visibility is considered `!isVisibilityExplicit` while  `-fvisibility-global-new-delete-hidden`'s is `isVisibilityExplicit`.
>
> dllspec and visibility are extensions for different object file formats and here we are mixing them together.
> Personally I don't favor defining too many "let A override B" designs. Adding `if (GV->hasDLLExportStorageClass() || GV->hasDLLImportStorageClass())` is mostly only due to compatibility consideration...

Sorry for the slow reply. -fvisibility-global-new-delete-hidden was implemented here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D53787, it is Clang only (it is not in GCC) and, as you pointed out, the changed visibility is deliberately `isVisibilityExplicit`. We are happy to accept the change in behaviour as we don't think it will impact customers.

>>> I think the only needed change is to allow dllexport protected, but then we probably need two diagnostics. Perhaps `diag::err_hidden_visiblity_dllexport` and `diag::err_non_default_visibility_dllimport`?
>>
>> SGTM!

LGTM. Thanks for your patience.



================
Comment at: clang/lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp:1116
+    if (GV->hasDLLExportStorageClass()) {
+      // Reject explicit hidden visibility on dllexport.
+      if (LV.getVisibility() == HiddenVisibility)
----------------
Opinion: I don't think these comments are needed as the code is clear. I think it would be better to have a single comment at the top of this block e.g. "Reject incompatible dlllstorageclass and visibility annotations" or just remove them.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D133266/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D133266