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

[Vassil Vassilev]

On 10/03/15 14:21, Ben Langmuir wrote:
> Ack, your response somehow got lost.
>
> LGTM.
Thanks!
>
>> +More information could be found `here 
>> <http://clang.llvm.org/docs/Modules.html>`_
>
> This should probably end with a period.
You are right, could you check it in with the period in the end?
Vassil
>
>> On Mar 10, 2015, at 1:10 AM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch 
>> <mailto: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> 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
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150310/4b633322/attachment.html>