ChuanqiXu added a comment. @aprantl Thanks for the reverting. I never image `-fcxx-modules` would refer to Clang C++ modules. So the problem becomes more complicated.
In D120540#3551169 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120540#3551169>, @iains wrote: > I guess Chuanqi's TZ is in sleep mode at the moment, so the revert makes > sense. > > Please let's not use -fmodules-ts to mean anything - we want to phase it out > and make it a NOP (we are implementing the standardised modules; I do not see > anyone putting effort into finishing the ts implementation). > > my suggestion is to introduce `-fmodules={cxx20, clang, etc. etc}` where > `-fmodules` is mapped in the driver to `-fmodules=clang` ... and to introduce > an enumeration in the options that is visible in the FE so that we can be > explicit in checking **which** kind of modules we mean at each stage. > > unfortunately, right now I cannot volunteer to implement the suggestion ... Now I feel your proposal looks better. Given the current complexity we saw, I feel it might be better to disambiguate the meaning of modules in clang first and I filed an issue: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/55891. So that we could avoid discussing the same problem again and again in different review pages. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D120540/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D120540 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
