Close https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/71347
Previously I misread the concept of module purview. I thought if a
declaration attached to a unnamed module, it can't be part of the module
purview. But after the issue report, I recognized that module purview is
more of a concept about locations instead of semantics.
Concretely, the things in the language linkage after module declarations
can be exported.
This patch refactors `Module::isModulePurview()` and introduces some
possible code cleanups.
It has been reported to that the current clang errors for, specifically,
static_assert in export contexts are a serious blocker to adoption of
modules in some cases.
There is also implementation divergence with GCC and MSVC allowing the
constructs mentioned below where clang currently rejects them with an
error.
The category of errors [for declarations in an exported context] is:
(unnamed, static_assert, empty and asm decls). These are now permitted
after P2615R1 which was approved by WG21 as a DR (and thus should be
applied to C++20 as well).
This patch removes these diagnostics and amends the testsuite accordingly.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D152946
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
We're going to remove the support for modules-ts. But there are a lot of
tests which uses -fmodules-ts. We shouldn't remove them simply. This
patch refactor these tests to use standard c++ modules.
