ChuanqiXu added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Lex/Pragma.cpp:807
if (Tok.is(tok::string_literal) && !Tok.hasUDSuffix()) {
StringLiteralParser Literal(Tok, PP);
if (Literal.hadError)
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > cor3ntin wrote:
> > > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > > Should this also be modified?
> > > Probably but because I'm not super familiar with module map things I
> > > preferred being conservative
> > Paging @rsmith for opinions.
> >
> > Lacking those opinions, I think being conservative here is fine.
> Pinging @ChuanqiXu for opinions.
I think the both options (to modify it or not) are acceptable. Because the
input here should be the output of the clang itself. See
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/ebd0b8a0472b865b7eb6e1a32af97ae31d829033/clang/lib/Basic/Module.cpp#L229-L231
and
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/ebd0b8a0472b865b7eb6e1a32af97ae31d829033/clang/lib/Frontend/Rewrite/FrontendActions.cpp#L238-L240.
We can see there is no deprecated prefix. So while it is acceptable to modify
this since its pattern matches the paper, it doesn't matter really since we can
control the input completely.
Personally, I prefer to not touch it. Since I feel like this use case doesn't
have been used a lot. So the effort here may not be worthy.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105759/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D105759
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
