Close https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/71034
See
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-c-20-modules-introduce-thin-bmi-and-decls-hash/74755
This patch introduces reduced BMI, which doesn't contain the definitions
of functions and variables if its definitions won't contribute to the
ABI.
Testing is a big part of the patch. We want to make sure the reduced BMI
contains the same behavior with the existing and relatively stable
fatBMI. This is pretty helpful for further reduction.
The user interfaces part it left to following patches to ease the
reviewing.
Close https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60824
The form -fmodule-file=<path-to-BMI> will load modules eagerly and the
form -fmodule-file=<module-name>=<path-to-BMI> will load modules lazily.
The inconsistency adds many additional burdens to the implementations.
And the inconsistency looks not helpful and necessary neither. So I want
to deprecate the form -fmodule-file=<path-to-BMI> for named modules.
This is pretty helpful for us (the developers).
Does this change make any regression from the perspective of the users?
To be honest, yes. But I think such regression is acceptable. Here is
the example:
```
// M.cppm
export module M;
export int m = 5;
// N.cpp
// import M; // woops, we forgot to import M.
int n = m;
```
In the original version, the compiler can diagnose the users to import
`M` since the compiler have already imported M. But in the later style,
the compiler can only say "unknown identifier `m`".
But I think such regression doesn't make a deal since it only works if
the user put `-fmodule-file=M.pcm` in the command line. But how can the
user put `-fmodule-file=M.pcm` in the command line without `import M;`?
Especially currently such options are generated by build systems. And
the build systems will only generate the command line from the source
file.
So I think this change is pretty pretty helpful for developers and
almost innocent for users and we should accept this one.
I'll add the release notes and edit the document after we land this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D144707
This adds a check for exported inline functions, that there is a definition in
the definition domain (which, in practice, can only be the module purview but
before any PMF starts) since the PMF definition domain cannot contain exports.
This is:
[dcl.inline]/7
If an inline function or variable that is attached to a named module is declared in
a definition domain, it shall be defined in that domain.
The patch also amends diagnostic output by excluding the PMF sub-module from the
set considered as sources of missing decls. There is no point in telling the user
that the import of a PMF object is missing - since such objects are never reachable
to an importer. We still show the definition (as unreachable), to help point out
this.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D128328
