[Tooling] [Ext] Modules and tooling: Resolving module import declarations

Tom Honermann tom at honermann.net
Fri Aug 31 20:44:22 CEST 2018


On 08/31/2018 01:25 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 08/31/2018 12:05 PM, Tom Honermann wrote:
>
>> Are you referring to the module mapper approach documented at 
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-modules?
>
> That documentation is pretty opaque.  I can only blame myself.

The fact that documentation for an experimental feature exists at all 
raises you well above the level at which criticism is justified ;)

>
>> If so, my concern with that approach is that it effectively requires 
>> a build system.  Perhaps the default module mapper does not (I'm not 
>> sure exactly what it does at present.  My brief tests indicate it 
>> requires a 
>
> The defaults it has right now may not be the best defaults.  (Hey, you 
> can go experiment with better defaults!)

Indeed, I can - and would like to if this discussion reveals an approach 
that might have broad agreement.

I'm lobbying for a position in which the default behavior is, if no 
suitable module artifact is identified, identify the module interface 
unit source code and translate it (produce and discard a module artifact 
if useful; or not).  And I'm looking for the answers to "where is the 
module interface unit source" and "how do I translate it" to be 
available in some industry standard tool agnostic form that doesn't 
require a running build invocation (but can depend on a prior (partial) 
build).

Tom.


More information about the Tooling mailing list