> 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.)
Yeah, `assert.h` should really be `textual`. I just thought it seemed odd that marking something `requires excluded` would correspond to `textual` instead of `exclude`. I think either would be fine, really. Also, we'd probably want a warning about this behaviour. And... I just discovered another module map bug this change exposed. We mislabeled the `IOKit.avc` submodule as `requires cplusplus`. After this patch, the `IOKit` module (and therefore all of `Cocoa`) won't build outside C++ modes :-( I propose an egregious special case hack that checks for the offending module by name and drops the bogus requirement. 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
