================ Comment at: lib/Serialization/ASTReader.cpp:3032 @@ -3031,1 +3031,3 @@ + + //FIXME: How do we load the 'use'd modules? They may not be submodules. ---------------- Daniel Jasper wrote: > Doug Gregor wrote: > > You can read/write global "submodule IDs". The "sub" is misleading in this > > case; it means that one might be referring to either a top-level module or > > to a submodule. > I don't understand where the ID of a global module would come from. As far as > I understand, all the (sub)modules within a single top-level module are > numbered and then referred to by this number. How would that work for global > modules? The writer conjures up (sub)module IDs when you call getSubmoduleID. Then the reader can turn that number into a reference to an actual Module* using getGlobalSubmoduleID/getSubmodule.
================ Comment at: docs/Modules.rst:198 @@ +197,3 @@ +``-fmodules-indirect-check`` + Extend checking of module imports and includes to indirect uses of modules. + ---------------- Daniel Jasper wrote: > Doug Gregor wrote: > > I wonder... do we have to have this as an option, or can we simply say that > > there is one right answer and implement only that? > We can try without. I think only direct checking makes sense at the moment. > Everything else was untested anyway .. WFM! ================ Comment at: lib/Basic/Module.cpp:271 @@ +270,3 @@ + } + // FIXME: Add handling of wildcard module specifications. +} ---------------- Daniel Jasper wrote: > Doug Gregor wrote: > > Why do we even have wildcards for uses? It seems that one would have to > > enumerate all of the uses separately for this feature to be useful. > I had the same initial thought. However, I think this might be useful e.g. > because a project's internal modules might be treated differently from system > modules. Internally, a project might want to specify all dependencies > clearly. However, it could e.g. be useful to say "uses std.*" because > including any header from std is always ok. (I don't feel certain about this, > though). Interesting. Would simply saying uses std; mean the same thing as uses std.*; ? Anyway, I'm okay with this, it just feels unnecessary. http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D1546 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
