Re: RFC - Remove support for PCH post 4.8

[Lawrence Crowl <crowl at googlers dot com>]

On 11/28/12, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2012 Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:
> > 2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>:
> > > My understanding from attending the last C++ standards
> > > committee is that we are still way far from having something
> > > that gets consensus of good enough proposal on modules to
> > > coalesce around.  We have several proposals, each in various
> > > states of experimental implementations; nothing more.
> >
> > Do you have pointers to any other other (currently viable)
> > proposals, besides the one outlined by N3347 and the slides
> > Chris pointed a link to?
>
> Lawrence Crowl (in collaboration with Diego I think) has a proposal
> based on PPH.  Lawrence knows best the proposal number.

The paper is N3426 Experience with Pre-Parsed Headers.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3426.html

Note however, that this paper is not a C++ proposal.  It tells our
experience in trying to save header parses.  By design, PPH does
not address some issues that we think need to be addressed in a
full modules proposal.  In particular, we think export control is
important to both robust software and decent compilation performance.

> It was already pointed out that David Vandevoorde has a proposal
> slightly different from Clang's.
>
> At the Fall 2012 Portland meeting, people from CERN expressed
> concerns about Clang's implementation and have been working with
> Clang people to get their proposed modifications integrated; it is
> not clear to me whether they have made progress on that or whether
> they are going to formally put forward a fourth formal proposal.
> As Doug just indicated, there is going to be another proposal
> based on Clang's current implementation -- which is different
> from the document referred to earlier.

-- 
Lawrence Crowl