[llvm] [Support] Add clang tooling generated explicit visibility macros (PR #113097)

[Nikita Popov via llvm-commits]

================

----------------
nikic wrote:

> I agree that documenting them is important. However, my concern is that it is going to spread fear and confusion due to the current state. We need to get to the state where the macros are properly setup so that we are able to build the DLLs with the reduced macro set to demonstrate that we are in the right state. At that point, as this becomes part of the development workflow, it would be something that must be documented and have clear guidelines on how to use the tooling to verify (as well as builds).

As the discussion on this PR and the clang one show, you already have fear and confusion now :)

I'd be fine with going ahead with this as long as there is *some* place we can point people to explaining what is going on here and what the plan going forward is. And by "some place" I don't mean "breadcrumbs spread across five different issues, PRs and discourse threads".

There should be a discourse post that says something along the lines of: We are going to be mass adding ABI annotations (because...), you should just ignore them for now (we'll add them to any new code ourselves), we're going to add automation (which does...?) to make sure they stay up to date once the bulk has landed. The annotations will only get used once we have automation and documentation in place.

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113097