Movatterモバイル変換

Proposed resolution (10/00):

A template name may have linkage (6.6 [basic.link]).

A template name has linkage (6.6 [basic.link]).A non-member function templatecan have internal linkage; any other template name shall have externallinkage. Entities generated from a template with internal linkage are distinctfrom all entities generated in other translation units.

Mike Ball: I cannot find anything in the standard that tells me the meaning ofastorage-class-specifier on a function template declaration. Inparticular, there is no indication what effect, if any, it has on the storageclass of the instantiations.

There is an explicit prohibition ofstorage-class-specifierson explicit specializations.

For example, if we have

    template<class T> static int foo(T) { return sizeof(T); }

So what does the specifier mean? Lacking a direct statement inthe standard, I see the following posibilities, in my preference order.

1. storage-class-specifiers have no meaning on template declarations,their use being subsumed by "export" (for the template name) andthe unnamed namespace (for instantiations)
2. storage-class-specifiers have no effect on the template name, butdo affect the linkage of the instantiations, though this now applies linkagetotemplate-ids, which I can find no support for. I suspectthis is what was intended, though I don't remember

From John Spicer

The standard does say that a namespace scope template has external linkageunless it is a function template declared "static". It doesn't explicitlysay that the linkage of the template is also the linkage of the instantiations,but I believe that is the intent. For example, a storage class isprohibited on an explicit specialization to ensure that a specializationcannot be given a different storage class than the template on which itis based.

Mike: This makes sense, but I couldn't find much supportin the document. Sounds like yet another interpretation to add tothe list.

John: Agreed.

Mike: Which is why I think it would be cleaner to eliminatestorage class specifiers entirely and rely on the unnamed namespace.There is a statement that specializations go into the namespace of thetemplate. No big deal, it's not something it says, so we live withwhat's there.

John: That would mean prohibiting static function templates.I doubt those are common, but I don't really see much motivation for gettingrid of them at this point.

Mike: I can't find that restriction in the standard,though there is one that templates in an unnamed namespace can't be exported.I'm pretty sure that we intended it, though.

John: I can't find it either. The "inline" case seems tobe addressed, but not static. Surely this is an error as, by definition,a static template can't be used from elsewhere.

Proposed resolution (10/00):

A template name may have linkage (6.7 [basic.link]).

A template name has linkage (6.7 [basic.link]).A non-member function templatecan have internal linkage; any other template name shall have externallinkage. Entities generated from a template with internal linkage are distinctfrom all entities generated in other translation units.