================
@@ -8265,6 +8265,11 @@ def internal_externc_isystem : Separate<["-"],
"internal-externc-isystem">,
"implicit extern \"C\" semantics; these are assumed to not be "
"user-provided and are used to model system and standard headers' "
"paths.">;
+def internal_iframework : Separate<["-"], "internal-iframework">,
----------------
ldionne wrote:
I see. But there is no notion of "extern C" for framework includes, so IMO it
makes more sense to make `-internal-iframework` "equivalent" to
`-internal-isystem` than to `-internal-externc-isystem`, would you agree?
More generally, I guess I am confused about the desired grouping for framework
includes. Do we want them to be `IncludeDirGroup::System`,
`IncludeDirGroup::ExternCSystem` or something else? IIUC, `-iframework` is
already part of `IncludeDirGroup::System`. If that's correct, then why is it
not sufficient to pass these system framework paths using `-iframework`
directly in the first place (i.e. why do we even need to introduce
`-internal-iframework` in the first place)?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/120149
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
