================
@@ -2164,6 +2164,12 @@ bool Driver::HandleImmediateArgs(const Compilation &C) {
return false;
}
+ if (C.getArgs().hasArg(options::OPT_print_library_module_manifest_path)) {
+ llvm::outs() << "module: ="
----------------
mordante wrote:
> I'd like there to be some distinction between "modules not present because
> Clang was built without them" and "modules not present but expected to be
> there" (maybe distro packagers split things and the modules package is
> missing?).
However that is hard to do and might be wrong. Currently stdlibc++ does not
ship modules. I don't know how clang-18 will ever find them stdlibc++-15 since
it's unknown whether that version will have modules nor do I know the name of
their manifest file.
Same for Clang and libc++, Clang has no idea whether libc++ was build with or
without modules. They are build independently. So it would need to look at the
version information of libc++ to detect whether it's libc++-18 or earlier.
Earlier never has the manifest.
IMO tool vendors should look at the output of this command; it either contains
a path or a single error value. If it's the error value they should not attempt
to build the std module.
What would be the benefit of different errors @mathstuf ? Especially
considering the above that it's hard to determine the proper error message.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76451
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
