rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Lex/PPDirectives.cpp:1665
@@ +1664,3 @@
+ // unavailable, diagnose the situation and bail out.
+ if (SuggestedModule && !SuggestedModule.getModule()->isAvailable()) {
+ clang::Module::Requirement Requirement;
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > I think this whole block should be moved down to line 1761 or so:
> >
> > 1. The code currently ensures that it always calls InclusionDirective on
> > the callback object for every `#include`, even if that include fails.
> > 2. We don't yet know that the file is actually part of `SuggestedModule`;
> > it could be in the directory of an umbrella header whose module is
> > unavailable, but it might not be part of that module.
> > 3. If we somehow got a suggested module but no file, we should not produce
> > additional spurious diagnostics beyond the "file not found" diagnostic we
> > already produced.
> One other thing: we should only diagnose when `ShouldEnter` is `false`. If
> we're entering the file anyway, we don't need the module to be available;
> only those files within it that we're actually entering need to be present.
Hmm, that's not quite right (`ShouldEnter` will be `false` the second time we
reach a header with an include guard too). I think the right thing is: don't
diagnose this if the suggested module's top-level module is either the current
module or the "implementation of" module (that is, if it's a module we'll
/always/ enter textually).
http://reviews.llvm.org/D10423
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
