[cfe-dev] Modules TS Work

Matt Asplund via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Sun Oct 7 18:19:45 PDT 2018


I have not had a chance to pull down and build the branch of gcc that has
the modules-ts implementation yet. From reading the spec I did not think
that macro definitions within a single translation unit would be affected
by it being a module unit at all, much less a previously defined macro in
the module interface unit. I was testing some with MSVC (until I hit a not
implemented error) and they seem to allow this scenario.

-Matt

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 5:55 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 5:46 PM Matt Asplund via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> I have been finding a few bugs in the modules-ts implementation and
>> wanted to know if this is still being actively work on
>>
>
> Certainly being actively worked on - mostly/entirely by Richard Smith
> (cc'd) & I think he's prioritizing some of the nastier edge cases as they
> come up in the standardization process, so "practical" bugs (once where the
> desired behavior is clear enough & it isn't likely to significantly impact
> the design/implementation in a significant way) might be a bit lower
> priority.
>
>
>> or if I should be sending out my own patches.
>>
>
> Generally welcome, I should think! :)
>
>
>> I am also finding it hard to track what work is being done with clang
>> modules and what work pertains to ModulesTS (Most notably there is only one
>> bucket for bug reporting under modules).
>>
>
> Fair - though they're pretty related - not sure it's worth having a
> separate bucket. But not a big deal either way.
>
>
>>
>> The issue I am stuck on right now is this:
>> *Bug 39206* <https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39206> - [Modules TS]
>> Macro defined in module interface cannot be set in implementation
>>
>>
> Thanks for filing! :) (what does GCC do, I wonder? Not sure if the support
> over there is near enough to support things)
>
>
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 4:32 PM André Jansen Medeiros Villar via cfe-dev <
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> CC Boris Kolpackov who has the only implamentation of Modules on a build
>>> system that i know of.
>>>
>>>
>>> Em qui, 4 de out de 2018 às 15:04, David Blaikie via cfe-dev <
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> escreveu:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 2:32 AM Whisperity via cfe-dev <
>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am just trying to improve CMake a bit to better explain directives
>>>>> for codes that use and depend on modules, instead of using nasty
>>>>> shadow targets and hacks. We also need to improve CMake so it knows
>>>>> dependencies: I ran into the issue that once I build the module PCM
>>>>> there is no check (neither from CMake's, nor Clang's side) whether the
>>>>> source file for that module was changed. Sometimes it keeps the PCM
>>>>> implementation ignoring the original one, sometimes just runs Clang
>>>>> into a nasty stack trace.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm super interested in CMake support for modules (both Clang's
>>>> back-compat modules (with modulemaps) and C++ standard modules) - I'll be
>>>> talking at the developer meeting about some of the issues around Modules TS
>>>> build system impact (following on from the talk I gave last year on modular
>>>> code generation) & honestly would love to have a CMake prototype/demo (for
>>>> clang back-compat modules and/or modules TS modules), with the intent to
>>>> get something usable for self-hosting one form of explicit modules or
>>>> another (modular code generation, etc) with the LLVM build, but not sure I
>>>> really have the CMake skills to pull that off in time.
>>>>
>>>> - Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ; Whisperity.
>>>>> Matt Asplund (mwasplund) via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> ezt írta
>>>>> (időpont: 2018. szept. 29., Szo, 17:15):
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hello,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I am curious if there is any active work being done on the Modules
>>>>> TS implementation. I would like to help fill in the gaps that I am finding
>>>>> while playing around with it and wanted to make sure I wasn’t duplicating
>>>>> work.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -Matt
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>> > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-dev mailing list
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20181007/069e8058/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list