rsmith added a comment. In D106394#2923007 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106394#2923007>, @cjdb wrote:
> In D106394#2922972 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106394#2922972>, @rsmith wrote: > >> As an alternative, have you considered checking whether any of the headers >> named in the pragma are in the include stack, and warning if not? That would >> seem to make this warning applicable to both user headers and system headers >> in an unsurprising way. We'd presumably need two lists of headers: the >> external headers that we encourage people to include to get at the >> implementation detail header, and the internal list of headers that are also >> allowed to use it but that we shouldn't list in the diagnostic. > > Wouldn't this suggestion mean that the following would be allowed? > > #include <utility> > #include <__utility/move.h> > > If not, then I'm probably misunderstanding your alternative design. No: when we process the second `#include`, `<utility>` is not on the `#include` stack. (It's not the includer of the current file, nor the includer of that file, ...). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106394/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106394 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
