[llvm-dev] ABI Breaking Checks

[David Blaikie via llvm-dev]

"strong" was wrong/unnecessary, sorry.

*looks more closely*

Ah, totally my mistake - abi-breaking.h wasn't being built as a modular
header, so it'd be included into two other modular headers, those two
header modules would be imported together & the two definitions would
conflict. But if it's actually built as its own module there's no
duplication & it's fine (probably explains why the modules buildbots are
fine).

Sorry for the noise! Carry on!

- Dave

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:31 PM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:

> How can a "weak" definition be a "strong" one!? ;)
>
> I think the reason for "weak" was to not duplicate it. A static would be
> duplicated in every translation unit that includes the header right? I
> don't know what it means in terms of extra number of relocation, etc.
> Also the attribute used will prevent the linker from dead-stripping the
> symbol in case of static linking and/or when using LTO.
>
> --
> Mehdi
>
>
> 2017-11-28 14:35 GMT-08:00 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>:
>
>> The abi-breaking.h seems to be incompatible with modules, owing to it
>> having strong definitions in the header.
>>
>> I'm wondering if I can make it compatible by changing the:
>>
>> __attribute__((weak, visibility("hidden"))) variables to
>> __attribute__((used)) static variables instead? It still seems to produce
>> the desired link errors in my basic tests. Does that seem plausible to you?
>>
>> (modules have a special case for static variables in headers to support
>> things like the iostreams initializer)
>>
>> Not sure why the modules buildbots don't see this but google's internal
>> build system building with modules does...
>>
>> - Dave
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171129/5da8a733/attachment.html>