ChuanqiXu added a comment. @dblaikie @iains @tschuett @boris There are many opinions in this page. They are about problems in the higher level. They are pretty important and helpful indeed. I'm really appreciated it. But most of them are not related to this diff itself and I don't think they are blocking issues of this diff.
This diff itself is a simple compilation invocation sugar to me (the term `compilation invocation sugar` is created by me. It is similar to the idea of `syntax sugar` in programming language. I am not sure if there is any existing/proper term). It is simple/cheap and it won't do anything harmful. And it is helpful for users to use modules and for implementors of build systems to do some quick POCs. For users, we can use modules by the help of this patch in the current build systems. The one of the example could be: https://reviews.llvm.org/D135507. If we don't have this patch, I guess we can only make it by some complex `add_custom_*` things. And for the implementors of build systems, it should be helpful too. Although I guess all of us here know that the one-phase compilation can't get the maximum parallelism, don't make perfect to be enemy of better. I really wish we can get this one accepted. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
