[PATCH] [modules] PR20507: Avoid silent textual inclusion.

[Richard Smith]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:

> ================
> Comment at: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticLexKinds.td:626
> @@ -625,1 +625,3 @@
> +def note_implicit_top_level_module_import_here : Note<
> +  "submodule of top-level module '%0' implicitly imported here">;
>  def warn_uncovered_module_header : Warning<
> ----------------
> benlangmuir wrote:
> > I'd just drop "submodule of top-level ".
> I think it's an important qualification because the module that was in
> fact imported is not %0. %0 is the top-level module containing it, and the
> error is because some submodule of %0 (perhaps the one being imported,
> perhaps not) has the missing file.
>
> From a user's perspective: "The header I included didn't ask for %0 to be
> imported. It asked for this submodule of it". Ideally we would be able to
> somehow communicate the "unity build" aspect of top-level modules for this
> to make sense, but I couldn't find a way to fit all that in a diagnostic.
>
> Does that make sense?


We use this kind of introductory text for a diagnostic produced within a
module:

In module '<top-level module>' imported from <use of submodule>:

... and a similar note for a diagnostic that occurs while implicitly
building a module, so removing the "submodule of top-level" from your
diagnostic would be consistent with that. In fact, I'm not sure your note
is necessary; don't we already produce a "While building <top-level module>
imported from <somewhere>" message prior to emitting the error message?

http://reviews.llvm.org/D10423
>
> EMAIL PREFERENCES
>   http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150619/c23026cd/attachment.html>