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

[Ben Langmuir]

Ack, your response somehow got lost.

LGTM.

> +More information could be found `here <http://clang.llvm.org/docs/Modules.html>`_

This should probably end with a period.

> On Mar 10, 2015, at 1:10 AM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote:
> 
> 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> <mailto: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> <mailto:vasil.georgiev.vasilev at cern.ch> wrote: 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi, 
>>>>>>   I am attaching a patch addressing http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18985 <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 <mailto:cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu> 
>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits> 
>>>> <Bug18985_1.diff> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits>
> 
> 
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------
> Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
> A: http://five.sentenc.es <http://five.sentenc.es/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150310/1681f85a/attachment.html>