vsk added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32724#749868, @dexonsmith wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32724#747728, @aprantl wrote: > > > Is it the right solution to use the module hash for correctness, or should > > the mismatch of the serialized langopts trigger a module rebuild and the > > module hash is only there to tune the performance/disk size tradeoff? > > > I'm not sure if there is (or should be) a hard-and-fast rule, but certainly > in this case changing the hash SGTM. Otherwise, users toggling back and > forth between build configurations would have to rebuild the modules each > time. Great, it looks like changing the module hash is acceptable. However, I'm not sure whether it's OK to make sanitizer feature mismatches errors for explicit modules. @aprantl suggests checking for language option mismatches early on instead of just relying on the module hash, but @rsmith mentioned: > I would expect this [sanitizer features] to be permitted to differ between an > explicit module build and its use. (Ideally we would apply the sanitization > settings from the module build to the code generated for its inline functions > in that case, but that can wait.) Should we diagnose sanitizer feature mismatches in ASTReader (checkLanguageOptions) as warnings, errors, or not at all? https://reviews.llvm.org/D32724 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
