LV.mergeExternalVisibility(argsLV);
}
+/// Should we consider visibility associated with the template
+/// arguments and parameters of the given variable template
+/// specialization? As usual, follow class template specialization
+/// logic up to initialization.
+static bool shouldConsiderTemplateVisibility(
+ const VarTemplateSpecializationDecl *spec,
+ LVComputationKind computation) {
+ // Include visibility from the template parameters and arguments
+ // only if this is not an explicit instantiation or specialization
+ // with direct explicit visibility (and note that implicit
+ // instantiations won't have a direct attribute).
+ if (!spec->isExplicitInstantiationOrSpecialization())
+ return true;
+
+ // An explicit variable specialization is an independent, top-level
+ // declaration. As such, if it has an explicit visibility attribute,
+ // that must directly express the user's intent, and we should honor
+ // it.
+ if (spec->isExplicitSpecialization() &&
+ hasExplicitVisibilityAlready(computation))
+ return false;
+
+ return !hasDirectVisibilityAttribute(spec, computation);
+}
+
+/// Merge in template-related linkage and visibility for the given
+/// variable template specialization. As usual, follow class template
+/// specialization logic up to initialization.
+static void mergeTemplateLV(LinkageInfo &LV,
+ const VarTemplateSpecializationDecl *spec,
+ LVComputationKind computation) {
+ bool considerVisibility = shouldConsiderTemplateVisibility(spec, computation);
+
+ // Merge information from the template parameters, but ignore
+ // visibility if we're only considering template arguments.
+
+ VarTemplateDecl *temp = spec->getSpecializedTemplate();
+ LinkageInfo tempLV =
+ getLVForTemplateParameterList(temp->getTemplateParameters(), computation);
+ LV.mergeMaybeWithVisibility(tempLV,
+ considerVisibility && !hasExplicitVisibilityAlready(computation));
+
+ // Merge information from the template arguments. We ignore
+ // template-argument visibility if we've got an explicit
+ // instantiation with a visibility attribute.
+ const TemplateArgumentList &templateArgs = spec->getTemplateArgs();
+ LinkageInfo argsLV = getLVForTemplateArgumentList(templateArgs, computation);
+ if (considerVisibility)
+ LV.mergeVisibility(argsLV);
+ LV.mergeExternalVisibility(argsLV);
+}
+
static bool useInlineVisibilityHidden(const NamedDecl *D) {
// FIXME: we should warn if -fvisibility-inlines-hidden is used with c.
const LangOptions &Opts = D->getASTContext().getLangOpts();
// C99 6.2.2p4 and propagating the visibility attribute, so we don't have
// to do it here.
+ // As per function and class template specializations (below),
+ // consider LV for the template and template arguments. We're at file
+ // scope, so we do not need to worry about nested specializations.
+ if (const VarTemplateSpecializationDecl *spec
+ = dyn_cast<VarTemplateSpecializationDecl>(Var)) {
+ mergeTemplateLV(LV, spec, computation);
+ }
+
// - a function, unless it has internal linkage; or
} else if (const FunctionDecl *Function = dyn_cast<FunctionDecl>(D)) {
// In theory, we can modify the function's LV by the LV of its
// Static data members.
} else if (const VarDecl *VD = dyn_cast<VarDecl>(D)) {
+ if (const VarTemplateSpecializationDecl *spec
+ = dyn_cast<VarTemplateSpecializationDecl>(VD))
+ mergeTemplateLV(LV, spec, computation);
+
// Modify the variable's linkage by its type, but ignore the
// type's visibility unless it's a definition.
LinkageInfo typeLV = getLVForType(*VD->getType(), computation);