[cfe-dev] [Modules] Silent textual inclusion when files not found.

[Sean Silva]

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Ben Langmuir <blangmuir at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 7:57 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Currently we do not seem to issue any form of diagnostic when there are
>>> missing headers named in a module map. See the attached test case. Even
>>> worse, we will just treat all headers in the module as textual. Hilarity
>>> ensues.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, this is llvm.org/PR20507
>>>
>>>
>>> Some prior art in this area:
>>> Daniel - r197485
>>> Ben - r206664
>>>
>>> Based on these commits, it ostensibly seems that clang does *some* sort
>>> of checking for missing files in a module map, but I can't seem to coax
>>> clang into doing this in C++ language mode.
>>>
>>> Looking at the source code, it seems like we end up conflating
>>> "unavailable" due to a failed `requires` with "a header is missing". It
>>> sounds like we essentially need two notions "unsatisfied `requires`" and
>>> "necessary header is missing" (a header guarded by an unsatisfied
>>> `requires` does not count as "necessary"). Haven't dug in deep yet, but my
>>> hypothesis is that somewhere along the way we silently treat a module with
>>> missing headers as though it had an unsatisfied `requires`, leading to us
>>> silently neglecting that it was ever in a module at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, they both come out as the module being “unvavailable”, which is why
>>> we don’t import it.  I think the right answer is that attempting to import
>>> any unavailable module (even via an auto-import) should be an error.  That
>>> is:
>>>
>>> module MissingHeader {
>>>     header “exists.h"
>>>     header “doesnt_exist.h”
>>> }
>>>
>>> #include <exists.h> // error, this would import MissingHeader, which is
>>> unavailable because we're missing header “doesnt_exist.h"
>>>
>>> module Top {
>>>     header “Top.h”
>>>     module A {
>>>         requires non_existent
>>>        header “A.h”
>>>     }
>>>     module B {
>>>         header “B.h”
>>>     }
>>> }
>>>
>>> #include <Top.h> // OK
>>> #include <A.h> // error, this would import Top.A, which is unavailable
>>> because of the missing requirment
>>> #include <B.h> // OK
>>>
>>> But handling the first case is more important I think.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm glad to put some effort into fixing this; I spent a good part of
>>> today with a bizarre error that I traced back to this and I don't want my
>>> users to have to deal with the same. Any pointers would be appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>> That would be great! I was coincidentally hoping to fix this myself in
>>> the next few weeks, but if you beat me to it even better.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm still acclimating myself to the modules code, do you have any
>> concrete thoughts on how to do this? I was just planning on looking through
>> for everywhere we use "unavailable" happens and figure out a pattern, but
>> if you already have an idea, it might save me some time.
>>
>
> Something like:
>  * make ModuleMap::findModuleForHeader able to produce an unavailable
> module, but treat it as being worse than any available module
>  * make Preprocessor::HandleIncludeDirective issue an error if its call to
> LookupFile produces a SuggestedModule that is unavailable
>

I ran into a bit of a snag when doing this. It looks
like diag::err_module_header_missing (and diag::err_module_unavailable) are
considered to be frontend diagnostics, so we can't issue them from Lex. Any
ideas on how to proceed? It doesn't feel right to duplicate a diagnostic,
it suggests we're missing a single point of truth for this.

Doing `git grep 'isAvailable([^)]'` suggests to me that we are checking the
availability way too "deep" in the frontend code. It seems the only
centralized place to check this would be in the module map parser, so maybe
we can reinstate this check in the module map parser like it was before
r197485 (the commit that regressed our diagnosing missing headers)? It
seems like that commit removed this functionality as work towards not
stating headers while reading the module map, but nothing seems to have
come of that.

-- Sean Silva


>
> This should probably happen even if modules is disabled (that is, when we
> are parsing module maps but not actually building / using precompiled
> module files).
>
> Also, any preferred bikeshed for the names for "unvailable because of
>> unsatisfied requires" and "necessary header is missing" concepts in the
>> source?
>>
>
> If the response to both is the same (as Ben suggested, and I agree) then
> I'm not sure that we need to distinguish them anywhere other than the place
> where we produce the diagnostic.
>
>
>> -- Sean Silva
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -- Sean Silva
>>> <testmoduledepbuildfail.tar>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20150609/f6fba6cc/attachment.html>