dexonsmith marked 2 inline comments as done.
dexonsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSerializationKinds.td:78
+def err_module_file_missing_definition : Error<
+ "module file '%0' is missing the main module's definition">, DefaultFatal;
----------------
bruno wrote:
> aprantl wrote:
> > Should this be `AST file` like in the above error message?
> +1
I think this should be `module file`, because it only applies to modules.
Notice that err_module_file_not_found and err_module_file_out_of_date use
`%select{PCH|module|AST} file`; this is just a constant-folding of that.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Serialization/ASTReader.cpp:5503
+ F.DidReadMainModule = true;
CurrentModule->setASTFile(F.File);
----------------
bruno wrote:
> Is this enough? Because this is done at the end of `SUBMODULE_DEFINITION`,
> could it be that only some of the submodules were read (top level or not) and
> this is still going to be true? I wonder if marking this `true` at the end of
> successful `SUBMODULE_BLOCK` instead wouldn't be a better option.
I see three cases to distinguish between:
1. An error is encountered somewhere in the submodule block.
2. The submodule block is read without error, but the main module is not
seen/added.
3. The submodule block is read without error, and the main module is seen/added.
Setting a flag to `true` at the end of a successful `SUBMODULE_BLOCK` would
help to distinguish between (1) and (2 or 3), but the return status already
tells us that, and `ReadAST` already deletes all the just-loaded modules in
that case.
This patch as-is helps to distinguish between (2) and (3) once the early return
for (1) has been avoided.
Does that make sense? Or maybe I didn't follow your suggestion.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70063/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D70063
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
