Re: [C++] GCC tree linkage types

[Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>]

On Nov 6, 2003, at 1:23 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:

> On 6 Nov 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> > Matt Austern <austern@apple.com> writes:
> > | So my question: since we've got three flags, in principle we've got
> > | 2^3 = eight possible combinations of flags.  I bet most of those 
> > eight
> > | don't make any sense.  Which combinations are errors, which are
> > | meaningful, and what are the distinctions between the meaningful
> > | combinations?  Should the answer to that question be documented
> > | somewhere?
> >
> > I don't know what the answers should be, but yes they should be
> > documented.
>
> Better yet, could all of these flags be folded into the DECL_VISIBILITY
> work?  Perhaps establish some clear semantics for these flags, and get
> the front-ends to generate the _correct_ flags?

It's not really quite the same things as visibility.  I don't think the 
two
should be folded together.

But you're right that they're related.  I'm doing the visibility work so
that handling the weak/comdat/one_only flags will be cleaner.

			--Matt