This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC - Remove support for PCH post 4.8
What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see
any of those in the C++ standard working paper:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf
David
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 11:05 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner@apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2012, at 9:08 PM, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chris Lattner <clattner@apple.com> writes:
>>>>> Clang has fantastic support for PCH... and soon modules. We don't
>>>>> plan to drop PCH support when modules is implemented.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a pointer to the modules proposal clang will implement?
>>>
>>> Most of it is implemented in mainline Clang already.
>>
>> For Object-C or C++?
>
> C and Objective-C are nearly complete, C++ support is still in progress.
>
>>
>>> Here is a recent talk describing it:
>>> http://llvm.org/devmtg/2012-11/Gregor-Modules.pdf
>>>
>>
>> It is likely that the module file format will be standardized in the
>> future, so it is better for different communities to start move in the
>> same direction. Is the module format adopted by Clang documented
>> anywhere?
>
> No, the design does not require a binary compatible file format. Header files and module maps remain "the truth". Any binary file format produced by a compiler as a side effect of building is an implementation detail of that compiler.
>
> -Chris