jansvoboda11 added a comment. In D151855#4403879 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D151855#4403879>, @benlangmuir wrote:
>> I think it should be fine to allow dropping the >> A.framework/Frameworks/B.framework directory from the reproducer VFS > > I think technically this is wrong, since if you're missing the symlink, then > A might not build -- e.g. it could be doing a relative include that needs the > symlink. But am I understanding correctly that the reproducer was already > broken in this case? If so I'm fine with this. You're right, this would break relative includes, which I believe the current test case would handle correctly. (It only fails to canonicalize the paths to `B.framework` and make it into a top-level framework.) > The right thing to do would be to capture both the framework and the symlink. > I'm not sure how practical that is with the current architecture. Yeah, I think currently we only record the (as-requested) file names while parsing a module map. I'm not sure how we could record both the canonical and subframework-like paths with the current more precise `FileEntryRefs`. (Long-term, we should probably unify this with the "affecting files and module maps" logic in `clang-scan-deps`.) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D151855/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D151855 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
