Including:
* expanding STDAPI to its definition (as per
<https://msdn.microsoft.com/library/ms686631(vs.85).aspx> "STDAPI"), to add
__declspec(dllexport) into its middle, in
extensions/source/activex/so_activex.cxx; as discussed in the comments at
<https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/60691/> "Get rid of Windows .def files in
setup_native, use __declspec(dllexport)", having a function both listed in a
.def file EXPORTS and marking it dllexport is OK, and the latter helps the
heuristics of loplugin:external; however, the relevant functions in
extensions/source/activex/so_activex.cxx probably don't even need to be
exported in the first place?
* follow-up loplugin:salcall in sal/osl/w32/file-impl.hxx
Change-Id: Ida6e17eba19cfa3d7e5c72dda57409005c0a0191
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/60938
Tested-by: Jenkins
Reviewed-by: Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com>
...warning about (for now only) functions and variables with external linkage
that likely don't need it.
The problems with moving entities into unnamed namespacs and breaking ADL
(as alluded to in comments in compilerplugins/clang/external.cxx) are
illustrated by the fact that while
struct S1 { int f() { return 0; } };
int f(S1 s) { return s.f(); }
namespace N {
struct S2: S1 { int f() { return 1; } };
int f(S2 s) { return s.f(); }
}
int main() { return f(N::S2()); }
returns 1, both moving just the struct S2 into an nunnamed namespace,
struct S1 { int f() { return 0; } };
int f(S1 s) { return s.f(); }
namespace N {
namespace { struct S2: S1 { int f() { return 1; } }; }
int f(S2 s) { return s.f(); }
}
int main() { return f(N::S2()); }
as well as moving just the function f overload into an unnamed namespace,
struct S1 { int f() { return 0; } };
int f(S1 s) { return s.f(); }
namespace N {
struct S2: S1 { int f() { return 1; } };
namespace { int f(S2 s) { return s.f(); } }
}
int main() { return f(N::S2()); }
would each change the program to return 0 instead.
Change-Id: I4d09f7ac5e8f9bcd6e6bde4712608444b642265c
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/60539
Tested-by: Jenkins
Reviewed-by: Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com>
