[PATCH] D55404: [libcxx] Support building static library with hidden visibility
Louis Dionne via Phabricator
reviews at reviews.llvm.org
Tue Dec 11 08:50:34 PST 2018
ldionne added a comment.
In D55404#1326554 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D55404#1326554>, @phosek wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate on the last sentence? Without `-fvisibility-global-new-delete-hidden` we would end up with `new` and `delete` symbols being exported from the shared library.
Quoting richard in https://reviews.llvm.org/D53787#1282975:
> These symbols really are special. Other symbols are introduced explicitly by a declaration, whereas these are declared implicitly by the compiler. Other symbols must have exactly one definition (modulo the permission for duplicate identical definitions for some cases), but these ones have a default definition that is designed to be overridable by a different definition appearing anywhere in the program. Other symbols are generally provided in one library and consumed by users of that library, whereas these symbols are typically provided by the main binary and consumed by the libraries that it uses. And so on.
Basically, what I'm saying is that giving hidden visibility to `new` and `delete` seemed like a bad idea to Richard, and I follow his argument: those functions should be overridable by users but that won't work if you give them hidden visibility (right?).
The reason why I'm pushing back on this change as-is is that it makes our build logic even more complex than it already is (and it's way too complex as-is). TBH, I'm fine with the use case but I'd like us to find a better solution than just adding yet another build mode with different options. Finding a way to express this in the source would be better (because the source doesn't depend on a build mode), but like you point out it falls short for marking new and delete as hidden (which might not be a good idea, but whatever). Instead of doing visibility like we do today (in the source), perhaps we could instead have an explicit list of symbols that we export from the shared library? We would get rid of all visibility annotations from the sources and would do it externally, all in the build system. I've been told this is what libstdc++ has been doing and I think they're doing better than libc++ in that area.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
More information about the libcxx-commits