================
@@ -1607,9 +1609,19 @@ void ASTWriter::WriteControlBlock(Preprocessor &PP,
StringRef isysroot) {
AddStringBlob(M.ModuleName, Record, Blob);
Record.push_back(M.StandardCXXModule);
- // We don't want to hard code the information about imported modules
- // in the C++20 named modules.
- if (M.StandardCXXModule) {
+ // We don't want to hard code file information for C++20 Modules
+ // (including explicitly mapped header units).
+ const Module *ImportedModule =
+ PP.getHeaderSearchInfo().getModuleMap().findModule(M.ModuleName);
+ bool IsPrebuiltHeaderUnit =
+ ImportedModule && ImportedModule->isHeaderUnit() &&
+ M.Kind == MK_PrebuiltModule &&
+ HSOpts.PrebuiltModuleFiles.count(M.ModuleName);
+
+ bool HasFileInfo = !M.StandardCXXModule && !IsPrebuiltHeaderUnit;
----------------
mpark wrote:
Hm... I was trying to capture it from the perspective of whether PCM file info
corresponding to an imported module is available or not. Would you consider
something like `HasImportedPCMFileInfo` to be more explicit and more acceptable?
If we want to go in the direction of something like `IsCXX20ModuleOrHeaderUnit`
I think... maybe `IsStandardCXXModuleOrPrebuiltHeaderUnit` or something like
that? Personally I would prefer to go in the direction because it's more...
let's say precise in what it represents? For example, if let's say we want
different mechanisms to also omit the PCM file info, `HasImportedPCMFileInfo`
would remain accurate.
What do you think?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/235597
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
