<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 18, 2014, at 5:28 PM, Richard Smith <<a href="mailto:richard@metafoo.co.uk" class="">richard@metafoo.co.uk</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Ben Langmuir<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:blangmuir@apple.com" target="_blank" class="">blangmuir@apple.com</a>></span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><span class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 17, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Richard Smith <<a href="mailto:richard@metafoo.co.uk" target="_blank" class="">richard@metafoo.co.uk</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Ben Langmuir<span class=""> </span><span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:blangmuir@apple.com" target="_blank" class="">blangmuir@apple.com</a>></span><span class=""> </span>wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><span class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 17, 2014, at 6:27 PM, Richard Smith <<a href="mailto:richard@metafoo.co.uk" target="_blank" class="">richard@metafoo.co.uk</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Ben Langmuir<span class=""> </span><span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:blangmuir@apple.com" target="_blank" class="">blangmuir@apple.com</a>></span><span class=""> </span>wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;">Hey Richard (& cfe-dev),<br class=""><br class="">Currently if one AST file imports another (e.g. module A imports module B), we store the absolute path of module B inside module A’s IMPORTS record. When we know that both files will always be in the same directory, this wastes space and more importantly prevents moving those modules to another directory. The latter is very handy when debugging a module bug for which someone has given you their broken module cache.<br class=""><br class="">When an implicitly built module imports another implicitly built module, we can rely on the modules always being in the same module cache, and I think we should switch to a relative path that is either looked up relative to the current pcm file or the (hash-specific) module cache dir. Do you think we should do this for explicitly built modules that happen to be in the same directory?</blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">My initial reaction is that we should preserve the path given in the -fmodule-file= argument on the command line. If I use -fmodule-file=x/foo.pcm and explicitly build y/bar.pcm, I think that y/bar.pcm should say that it finds foo in 'x/foo.pcm’.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span>This makes sense to me. In that case, we’ll probably need to store another bit to distinguish “relative to CWD” from “relative to module cache”, or else -fmodule-file=<some implicitly built module>.pcm might choose an unexpected file. Alternatively, we could store the ModuleKind for the module when it was written (as opposed to when it was loaded), I guess.</div><div class=""><span class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If the user then builds with -fmodule-file=z/foo.pcm -fmodule-file=y/bar.pcm, we should probably ignore the path that was specified for 'foo' when building 'bar’.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span><div class="">I assume you mean ‘loading bar'.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Err, I mean we should ignore the path for foo that was specified at the time when bar was built when loading bar.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span><div class="">Ah.</div><span class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;" class=""><div class=""><span class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;">What about implicitly built modules that are imported by explicitly built modules?<br class=""></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It seems tricky to make that work transparently if the modules have been relocated. We shouldn't expect that explicitly-built modules are located anywhere near the module cache, so I guess the best we can do is to look for such files in the module cache by default (even if the module cache has moved), and not bother writing out /path/to/module/cache/thing.pcm. If they've been relocated, then I suppose you could explicitly import them with -fmodule-file=$foo.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">However, we need to be cautious that things can change between explicit module build and use, so we need to use the parameters from the explicit module itself when determining the configuration hash of the implicit module.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span><div class="">Good point, I hadn’t considered this issue.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;" class=""><div class=""><span class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">Maybe the simplest thing to do is to skip this case for now; we'd only be saving the space cost of writing out the path to the module cache,</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span><div class="">Sounds good.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div></span><div class="">Actually, can we skip this case? What if the user builds a bunch of modules implicitly then starts using some of them explicitly with -fmodule-file. Then we can’t know at build time whether to write a module-cache-relative path or normal path.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We can't know at the build time of which module? </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I was basically saying that because the “explicitness” of a module can change in subsequent loads, we cannot store just a cache-relative path for implicit imports unless we can reconstruct where the cache itself was at the time of building the importing module. In other words, unless we have not skipped this case.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">Just to make sure we're on the same page: whether a module file is explicit or implicit is a property of how it's loaded, not of how it's built.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>What terminology do you use for “built on-demand” vs. “built with -emit-module”? A module that is built on-demand is always being implicitly imported at the point it is originally built.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">If it's found by -fmodule-file, then it's explicit and we should write out its path relative to $PWD; if it's found in the module cache implicitly, then it's implicit and we should write out its path relative to the cache.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;" class=""><div class=""><div class="">That makes me think using cache-relative paths won’t be a great solution.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">One answer could be:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1) When we write a module import, we write out the module’s name.</div><div class="">2.1) When we load an imported module, we first check if there is an override from -fmodule-file for a module.</div><div class="">2.2) Otherwise, if the module is imported explicitly, we use a stored path, which will be absolute or relative to the working directory (as normal).</div><div class="">2.3) Otherwise, if the module is imported implicitly, we lookup the path using the hash-specific module cache and the module’s name.</div><div class="">3) When we load a module explicitly, we figure out the hash-specific module cache directory from the time it was built (either by reconstructing all the options or by writing it out separately in the AST file and then re-loading it), and use that for any implicit imports of the current module.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This all makes sense to me.</div><div class=""> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;" class=""><div class=""><div class="">Which results in:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">a) Any module can be moved around individually by using -fmodule-file</div><div class="">b) Implicit imports of explicit modules will look for their .pcm in the location it was found when the explicit module was built.</div><div class="">c) If there are only implicit modules, you can use -fmodules-cache-path and move the whole cache directory around.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thoughts? I’m not sure how I feel about (b), but (a) and (c) seem good to me.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I'm not really sure what (b) means. But (a) and (c) seem like goodness.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>(b) means if you pass -fmodule-file for A, and A has an implicit import for B C and D, you cannot move B, C and D together by just changing -fmodules-cache-path. You need to spell out -fmodule-file for each module individually if you want to move them. This is only interesting in that it is different from (c) where if *all* of the modules are found implicitly we can move the whole cache at once.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>If there’s no objections, I’ll put together a patch for this.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Ben</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;" class=""><div class=""><span class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="word-wrap: break-word;" class=""><div class=""><span class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">and I don't think that's a big deal (at least, not compared to the 100K we waste on a name lookup table for builtins and keywords in each module).</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></span></div><div class="">OT, but: Fixing that has been near the bottom of my TODO list for a long time. IIRC it’s not just a waste of space, because if a system module defines one of those builtin names (e.g. ceil in tgmath.h) we might find the wrong one because we take the first one we find that’s up to date.</div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_extra">I did some analysis of the size cost in the context of PR21397, but never got any production-ready changes out of it.</div></div></div></blockquote></span></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>