| Summary: | Would like to control the ELF visibility of template explicit instantiations | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | gcc | Reporter: | Thiago Macieira <thiago> |
| Component: | c++ | Assignee: | Not yet assigned to anyone <unassigned> |
| Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | visibility |
| Priority: | P3 | ||
| Version: | 13.0 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| See Also: | https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38175 | ||
| Host: | Target: | ||
| Build: | Known to work: | ||
| Known to fail: | Last reconfirmed: | ||
| Bug Depends on: | 77306 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
Given a template like: template <typename T> struct __attribute__((visibility("hidden"))) S { static constexpr int n = 0; }; I would like to mark an explicit instantiation (not a specialisation!) with a different visibility: template struct __attribute__((visibility("default"))) S<int>; template __attribute__((visibility("default"))) const int S<unsigned>::n; Either solution would help me, but the first would be preferable. Both would be best. Clang does support both forms properly. Visual Studio supports the former only. See https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/T7sdzTnbG and note how GCC adds ".hidden" to the two "::n" symbols and Clang doesn't, while Clang properly refers to those symbols using @GOTPCREL and GCC doesn't. The MVSC example uses dllimport only to highlight the difference; it wouldn't be written like this in real code. Please ensure "protected" visibility also works. See https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/o3W4x5YsG