ChuanqiXu9 wrote: > > See also https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/2947.html. > > Note that it not only suggests wording changes necessary to achieve the > intent of https://wg21.link/p3034, it also has a number of examples > demonstrating that the wording allows > > ```c++ > export module m; int n; > ``` > > The above works with Clang before this PR: > > ``` > $ oldclang -std=c++26 -fsyntax-only -xc++-module -<<<$'export module M; int > n;' > Return: 0x00:0 Wed Sep 24 19:36:21 2025 EDT > ``` > > but stops working with the PR in its current form: > > ``` > $ clang -std=c++26 -fsyntax-only -xc++-module -<<<$'export module M; int n;' > <stdin>:1:18: warning: extra tokens at end of 'module' directive > [-Wextra-tokens] > 1 | export module M; int n; > | ^ > | // > <stdin>:1:24: error: expected unqualified-id > 1 | export module M; int n; > | ^ > 1 warning and 1 error generated. > Return: 0x01:1 Wed Sep 24 19:37:13 2025 EDT > ```
It is hard to believe it is by design to allow "export module m; int n;" while we reject others. Is is possible to adjust the wording for it? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/107168 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
