Additional note, July, 2019:

The proposed resolution removes the sentence from the existing text reading:

If, within a translation unit, the same entity is declared with both internal and external linkage, the program is ill-formed.

Such a sitution can still arise, however:

   void f() {
     void g(); // external linkage
   }
   static void g(); // internal linkage

The remaining wording dealing with linkage agreement, 9.2.2 [dcl.stc] paragraph 6,

The linkages implied by successive declarations for a given entity shall agree. That is, within a given scope, each declaration declaring the same variable name or the same overloading of a function name shall imply the same linkage.

does not apply to this example because the declarations are not within the same scope.

The issue has been returned to "review" status to allow consideration of how best to address this problem.

Proposed resolution, April, 2019:

1. Change 6.6 [basic.link] paragraph 8 as follows:

The name of a A function declared in block scope and the name of or a variable declared by a block scope extern declaration have is a member of the innermost enclosing namespace and its name has linkage. If such a declaration is attached to a named module, the program is ill-formed. If there is a visible prior declaration of an entity with linkage, ignoring entities declared outside the innermost enclosing namespace scope that name in that namespace, such that the block scope declaration would be a (possibly ill-formed) redeclaration if the two declarations appeared in the same declarative region, the block scope declaration declares that same entity and its name receives the linkage of the previous declaration. If there is more than one such matching entity, the program is ill-formed. Otherwise, if no matching entity is found, the block scope entity receives external the linkage of the innermost enclosing namespace. If, within a translation unit, the same entity is declared with both internal and external linkage, the program is ill-formed. [Example:

  static void f();
  extern "C" void h();
  static int i = 0;    // #1
  void g() {
    extern void f();   // internal linkage
    extern void h();   // C language linkage
    extern void k();   // ::k, external linkage
    int i;             // #2: i has no linkage
    {
      extern void f(); // internal linkage
      extern int i;    // #3: external internal linkage, ill-formed
    }
  }

Without the declaration at line #2, the declaration at line #3 would link with the declaration at line #1. Because the declaration with internal linkage is hidden, however, #3 is given external linkage, making the program ill-formed. Even though the declaration at line #2 hides the declaration at line #1, the declaration at line #3 still redeclares #1 and receives internal linkage. —end example]

2. Change 6.6 [basic.link] paragraph 9 as follows:

When a A block scope declaration of an entity with linkage is not found to refer to some other declaration, then that entity is a member of the innermost enclosing namespace. However such a declaration does not introduce by itself make the member name visible to any form of name lookup in its namespace scope or eligible for declaration by qualified-id. [Example:

  namespace X {
    void p() {
      q();                   // error: q not yet declared
      extern void q();       // q is a member of namespace X
      extern void r();       // r is a member of namespace X
    }

    void middle() {
      q();                   // error: q not yet declared visible to name lookup
    }

    void q() { /* ... */ }   // definition of X::q
  }

  void q() { /* ... */ }     // some other, unrelated q
  void X::r() { /* ... */ }  // error: r cannot be declared by qualified-id

—end example]

[Accepted at the November, 2020 meeting as part of paper P1787R6 and moved to DR at the February, 2021 meeting.]

According to 6.6 [basic.link] paragraph 6,

The name of a function declared in block scope and the name of a variable declared by a block scope extern declaration have linkage. If there is a visible declaration of an entity with linkage having the same name and type, ignoring entities declared outside the innermost enclosing namespace scope, the block scope declaration declares that same entity and receives the linkage of the previous declaration. If there is more than one such matching entity, the program is ill-formed.

It is not clear how declarations that are in the lexical scope of the block-scope declaration but not members of the nearest enclosing namespace (see 9.8.2 [namespace.def] paragraph 6) should be treated. (For example, the definition of the function in which the block extern appears might be defined in an enclosing namespace, with a visible declaration of the name in that namespace, or it might be a member function of a class containing a member function of the name being declared.) Should such declarations be produce an error or should the lexically-nearer declaration simply be ignored? There is implementation divergence on this point.