[Patch][BugzillaID#18985] Document __has_feature(modules)

[Vassil Vassilev]

ping... I really want to close that annoying bugzilla ticket ;)
On 18/09/14 20:08, Vassil Vassilev wrote:
> On 18/09/14 18:04, Ben Langmuir wrote:
>>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 3:47 AM, Vassil Vassilev 
>>> <vasil.georgiev.vasilev at cern.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/17/2014 09:51 PM, Ben Langmuir wrote:
>>>>> Index: docs/LanguageExtensions.rst
>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>> --- docs/LanguageExtensions.rst    (revision 217389)
>>>>> +++ docs/LanguageExtensions.rst    (working copy)
>>>>> @@ -477,6 +477,13 @@
>>>>>   Use ``__has_feature(cxx_rtti)`` to determine if C++ RTTI has 
>>>>> been enabled.  For
>>>>>   example, compiling code with ``-fno-rtti`` disables the use of 
>>>>> RTTI.
>>>>>   +C++ Modules
>>>>> +^^^^^^^^
>>>>> +
>>>>> +Use ``__has_feature(modules)`` to determine if experimental C++ 
>>>>> Modules have
>>>>> +been enabled. For example, compiling code with ``-fmodules`` 
>>>>> enables the use of
>>>>> +C++ Modules.
>>>>> +
>>>>>   C++11
>>>>>   -----
>>>>>
>>>> Why are we making this specific to C++ modules?  Modules are 
>>>> supported in C/ObjC. And to actually get modules in C++ you also 
>>>> need -fcxx-modules.
>>> Thanks for the comments. lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:3790 says:
>>>   // -fmodules enables modules (off by default). However, for 
>>> C++/Objective-C++,
>>>   // users must also pass -fcxx-modules. The latter flag will 
>>> disappear once the
>>>   // modules implementation is solid for C++/Objective-C++ programs 
>>> as well.
>>>
>>> I prefer not to document the -fcxx-modules.
>> Yep, makes sense.
>>
>>> The attached patch doesn't mention the C++ modules but Modules in 
>>> general (I decided to put them into a separate section). Is it any 
>>> better?
>>> Vassil
>> Much better - a couple more comments below:
>>
>>> +Modules
>>> +-------
>>> +
>>> +C/ObjC Modules
>>> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Do we really need a sub-heading?  If we do need one I suggest “C and 
>> Objective-C Modules”.  Otherwise just a heading “Modules” seems 
>> sufficient.
> Yep good point.
>>
>>> +
>>> +Use ``__has_feature(modules)`` to determine if Modules have been 
>>> enabled.
>>> +For example, compiling code with ``-fmodules`` enables the use of 
>>> Modules.
>> I suggest we put in a link to the modules documentation.
> Now should be better. Thanks!
> Vassil
>>
>>>> Ben
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:59 AM, Vassil Vassilev 
>>>>> <vasil.georgiev.vasilev at cern.ch> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>   I am attaching a patch addressing 
>>>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18985
>>>>>   I wasn't sure whether I had to say 'experimental C++ modules'.
>>>>> Vassil
>>>>> <Bug18985.diff>_______________________________________________
>>>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>>>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>> <Bug18985_1.diff>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits


-- 
--------------------------------------------
Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
A: http://five.sentenc.es

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150310/6f19946c/attachment.html>