In http://reviews.llvm.org/D10423#198214, @benlangmuir wrote:
> 1. This patch exposes a compatibility issue with our 'Darwin' module map file > (the module map that covers most of /usr/include on Darwin platforms). ``` > error: module 'Darwin.C.excluded' requires feature 'excluded' ``` This > "excluded" submodule was used as a hack for "assert.h" before the explicit > support for "exclude" and "textual" headers were added to clang. After this > patch, it won't be possible to include assert.h on Darwin, because the module > it is in is missing a requirement. I think it would be very bad to break > compatibility here, so I propose we add a compatibility hack to module map > parsing that treats a module with a the requirement "excluded" as if all its > headers were declared with "exclude". What do you think? I'm happy to > implement this. Should this be `textual` instead of `exclude`? That's generally a better way to handle `assert.h`, I think. (That said, I don't think it really matters, because no-one cares which module `assert.h` is in, and we don't yet build PTH for textual headers.) > So concretely for the present patch just the change to `isBetterKnownHeader` > to take into account of `isAvailable`? Yes, I think so. http://reviews.llvm.org/D10423 EMAIL PREFERENCES http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
