> From a user's perspective: "The header I included didn't ask for %0 to be > imported. It asked for this submodule of it"
Alternatively, the user may not be aware of the internal structure of a top-level module and just expect it to work like it works with header includes :-) I'd still prefer the diagnostic without "submodule of top-level", which is also consistent with our "While building module" include-stack style notes. But I don't think this is worth holding up your patch over. This question still seems to be outstanding: > So concretely for the present patch just the change to isBetterKnownHeader to > take into account of isAvailable? Richard, can you comment? http://reviews.llvm.org/D10423 EMAIL PREFERENCES http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
