Re: gcc visibility used by moz

[Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>]

Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
> Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > Do you agree with implicitly giving template instantiations the 
> > minimum visibility of the template and arguments unless explicitly 
> > overridden?
>
> This is not what I would naturally expect, coming from a 
> dllimport/export mindset, but I don't think it's a problem from the 
> mozilla POV: all of our exports are explicitly declared if/when we use 
> hidden visibility pragmas.
>
> Is a pragma considered an explicit override? e.g.
>
> class nsIAbstract {
>   virtual void Bar();
> };
>
> #pragma GCC visibility push(default)
> nsIAbstract* Getter();
> #pragma GCC visibility pop

For a namespace-scope entity like this, yes (class members and template 
instantiations use the visibility of their class and template in 
preference to the current #pragma).

> > Also, do you agree with warning about a class with greater visibility 
> > than its data members/bases?
>
> Sure... I would really like to disable this warning if possible, since 
> it will be produced thousands of times in a mozilla build ;-)

I find that surprising, since it sounds like VC++ gives the same warning 
about a dllexport class with a non-dllexport base.

Jason