dexonsmith abandoned this revision. dexonsmith added a comment. I just pushed 31e14f41a21f9016050a20f07d5da03db2e8c13e <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG31e14f41a21f9016050a20f07d5da03db2e8c13e>, which moves KnownModules into ModuleMap as an alternative.
In D58497#1648134 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58497#1648134>, @rsmith wrote: > Do we need `KnownModules` at all? It seems to serve a very similar purpose to > the `Modules` string map on `ModuleMap`. (The main difference seems to be > that `KnownModules` can cache module load failures.) If we can keep only a > single data structure tracking this, owned by the `ModuleMap` (which also > owns the modules), that should remove the possibility for dangling module > pointers. ModuleMap::Modules only has top-level modules, but KnownModules also indexes submodules. I kept them both. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58497/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58497 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
