dexonsmith added a comment. In D111560#3056175 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111560#3056175>, @jansvoboda11 wrote:
> In D111560#3056021 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111560#3056021>, @dexonsmith > wrote: > >> In D111560#3055578 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111560#3055578>, @jansvoboda11 >> wrote: >> >>> Note: Another approach to fixing this might be to cache the module load >>> results while loading the PCH too. >> >> Can you share why you chose this approach instead, and which do you think >> makes sense long term? > > I assumed there was a reason this is not being done for PCHs that I can't see. > > If that idea seems workable to you, I can give it a try and see if it leads > to cleaner code. Conceptually, I think it would make sense to treat both PCHs > and PCMs the same in this regard. I can't think of a reason not to do it but maybe I'm not being imaginative enough. I tend to suspect differences between PCH and PCM are incidental, due to flagging interest in PCH once PCMs started to work. > It would be nice to have @rsmith's opinion, since I think he originally > implemented this. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D111560/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D111560 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
