aprantl added a comment. In D57976#1393939 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57976#1393939>, @dblaikie wrote:
> This, I guess, is part of the impact of moving towards explicit modules > (-fmodule-name is for building a module with that name, right?)? That option is overloaded. It's used to specify the name of an explicit modules too, but in this context particularly it is used to specify that clang is compiling the Framework that defines the module with that name, which has the effect of *not* building the module of that name as a clang module even though -fmodules was specified and every other module is built as a module. This is necessary for developing Frameworks that are part of the macOS SDK to avoid accidentally include the module from the OS instead of the one being developed. That's a quite specific use-case. > With explicit modules there is the option for modular code generation - which > doesn't require any specific DWARF consumer support (so should "just work" - > if you've a build system you can teach to generate a .o file from the .pcm, > and link that .o with everything else) Different can of worms, I believe. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57976/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57976 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
