ChuanqiXu added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/test/Modules/module-file-info-cxx20.cpp:26 + +#if TU == 1 + ---------------- iains wrote: > ChuanqiXu wrote: > > According to [[ > > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p1857r3.html | > > P1857R3 ]], it might not be good to add macro declarative before module > > declaration. Although clang didn't implement it and there are old test case > > uses this style, I think it might be better to split into files. @urnathan > > how do you think about this? > I see this in the Tony tables, but OTOH I cannot exactly see where the > wording forbids it - in fact it permits preprocesssor directives before the > import (including in the example in 5.7)... perhaps I'm misreading. > > This way of writing the test cases does make them much easier to manage (and > for a reader to see the intent) - of course, if we should split into files - > then that is what we should do. > I think the grammar in [[ http://eel.is/c++draft/cpp | [cpp.pre] ]] forbid it. First, the file could only be: ``` preprocessing-file: group_opt module-file ``` Then it is clear that we couldn't put macro declarative before module declaration. I agree the current style is easier and more convenient. In fact, I prefer it too. But I think we would better follow it since it is standard. Otherwise, it would be more work in later maintenance stage. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119823/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119823 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
