Bigcheese added a comment. In D77697#1970586 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77697#1970586>, @dexonsmith wrote:
> In D77697#1969998 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D77697#1969998>, @compnerd wrote: > > > @dexonsmith - yeah, sadly I dont think that there is a good way to audit > > that - any change to the public headers can cause issues. Furthermore, the > > libc headers themselves also influence this. > > > For auditing, can you use `llvm-bcanalyze` to see which headers are claimed > by which PCM? If not, we should probably add a `clang-pcm` tool or something > to help inspect module contents. @Bigcheese, thoughts? > > I guess the obvious concern about this is that this is a game of > whack-a-mole. If the headers change, you may need to shuffle module order > again, at which point, which version of libc should we make libc++ work > against? And different libc implementations could need different orders. > But I'm just pointing it out; I don't have a problem with this patch landing. That would be useful for debugging this kind of issue and for testing a specific set of system headers + libc++ headers. I'm also fine with this patch. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D77697/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D77697 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
