Ack, your response somehow got lost. LGTM.
> +More information could be found `here > <http://clang.llvm.org/docs/Modules.html>`_ This should probably end with a period. > On Mar 10, 2015, at 1:10 AM, Vassil Vassilev <[email protected]> wrote: > > ping... I really want to close that annoying bugzilla ticket ;) > On 18/09/14 20:08, Vassil Vassilev wrote: >> On 18/09/14 18:04, Ben Langmuir wrote: >>>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 3:47 AM, Vassil Vassilev >>>> <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 09/17/2014 09:51 PM, Ben Langmuir wrote: >>>>>> Index: docs/LanguageExtensions.rst >>>>>> =================================================================== >>>>>> --- docs/LanguageExtensions.rst (revision 217389) >>>>>> +++ docs/LanguageExtensions.rst (working copy) >>>>>> @@ -477,6 +477,13 @@ >>>>>> Use ``__has_feature(cxx_rtti)`` to determine if C++ RTTI has been >>>>>> enabled. For >>>>>> example, compiling code with ``-fno-rtti`` disables the use of RTTI. >>>>>> +C++ Modules >>>>>> +^^^^^^^^ >>>>>> + >>>>>> +Use ``__has_feature(modules)`` to determine if experimental C++ Modules >>>>>> have >>>>>> +been enabled. For example, compiling code with ``-fmodules`` enables >>>>>> the use of >>>>>> +C++ Modules. >>>>>> + >>>>>> C++11 >>>>>> ----- >>>>>> >>>>> Why are we making this specific to C++ modules? Modules are supported in >>>>> C/ObjC. And to actually get modules in C++ you also need -fcxx-modules. >>>> Thanks for the comments. lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:3790 says: >>>> // -fmodules enables modules (off by default). However, for >>>> C++/Objective-C++, >>>> // users must also pass -fcxx-modules. The latter flag will disappear >>>> once the >>>> // modules implementation is solid for C++/Objective-C++ programs as >>>> well. >>>> >>>> I prefer not to document the -fcxx-modules. >>> Yep, makes sense. >>> >>>> The attached patch doesn't mention the C++ modules but Modules in general >>>> (I decided to put them into a separate section). Is it any better? >>>> Vassil >>> Much better - a couple more comments below: >>> >>>> +Modules >>>> +------- >>>> + >>>> +C/ObjC Modules >>>> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> Do we really need a sub-heading? If we do need one I suggest “C and >>> Objective-C Modules”. Otherwise just a heading “Modules” seems sufficient. >> Yep good point. >>> >>>> + >>>> +Use ``__has_feature(modules)`` to determine if Modules have been enabled. >>>> +For example, compiling code with ``-fmodules`` enables the use of >>>> Modules. >>> I suggest we put in a link to the modules documentation. >> Now should be better. Thanks! >> Vassil >>> >>>>> Ben >>>>> >>>>>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:59 AM, Vassil Vassilev >>>>>> <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> I am attaching a patch addressing >>>>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18985 >>>>>> <http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18985> >>>>>> I wasn't sure whether I had to say 'experimental C++ modules'. >>>>>> Vassil >>>>>> <Bug18985.diff>_______________________________________________ >>>>>> cfe-commits mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >>>>>> <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits> >>>> <Bug18985_1.diff> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits> > > > -- > -------------------------------------------- > Q: Why is this email five sentences or less? > A: http://five.sentenc.es <http://five.sentenc.es/>
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
