[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D94924: [libc++] first steps of a private modulemap

[Louis Dionne via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

ldionne added a comment.

Generally speaking, I have no objection with doing this if it's an improvement. But I don't understand the benefits / tradeoffs here cause I don't have much experience with Clang modules (so far the libc++ Clang modules are kind of a side thing maintained by people who care about it, but we still use the non-modular build by default). Can you explain what introducing private modules is going to buy us, and what sort of changes are going to be required? Will this have any visible change for people building with `-fcxx-modules` or `-fmodules` today?



================
Comment at: libcxx/include/__undef_macros_private:12
+#ifdef min
+#if !defined(_LIBCPP_DISABLE_MACRO_CONFLICT_WARNINGS)
+#if defined(_LIBCPP_WARNING)
----------------
tschuett wrote:
> ldionne wrote:
> > Can you please indent nested preprocessor directives?
> It should be a plain copy of__undef_macros?!?
Wait, so why do we keep both `__undef_macros` and `__undef_macros_private`? Sorry if that's a basic question, I'm not very familiar with private module maps.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D94924/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D94924