llvm dev - Jun 2018 - Is that LLVM Language Reference Manual's bug?

Dear list,

http://www.llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#visibility-styles says  "A
symbol with internal or private linkage must have default visibility."
 I think it should be protected visibility.

-- 
Best Regards,
Yu Rong Tan

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 at 11:05, Nancy via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> http://www.llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#visibility-styles says  "A
> symbol with internal or private linkage must have default visibility."
>  I think it should be protected visibility.
The statement in the LangRef is the one that's enforced. I can see why
it looks like "protected" is the closest to reality but I think
what's
actually happening is that "internal" and "private" linkage
make the
visibility specifiers meaningless, and what you get when you don't
specify one happens to be "default".

Since it'll never be printed anyway, there's not really any reason to
invent something like "internal_default" just to make the
documentation neater.

Cheers.

Tim.

> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> http://www.llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#visibility-styles says  "A
>> symbol with internal or private linkage must have default
visibility."
>>  I think it should be protected visibility.
>
> The statement in the LangRef is the one that's enforced. I can see why
> it looks like "protected" is the closest to reality but I think
what's
> actually happening is that "internal" and "private"
linkage make the
> visibility specifiers meaningless, and what you get when you don't
> specify one happens to be "default".
>
> Since it'll never be printed anyway, there's not really any reason
to
> invent something like "internal_default" just to make the
> documentation neater.
Thank you very much for your info ~