iains wrote: > > When I suggested this, it was an intention to limit it to C++ std library > > headers. Do we not have some existing mechanism that knows which headers > > are in this category (for typo correction etc?) > > As far as I can reach, we don't have such a mechanism.
Ah, that's unfortunate, if we could limit the initial warning to items within the language and only expand it if there are reported problems elsewhere it would be easier. >I was wondering if we can do this by using `# pragma GCC system_header`. But >it shows that the libcxx don't always use this pragma. agree that this would seem unreliable/unusable. > Also I feel it makes sense to not include other system headers. e.g., in our > coding standards, we need `<>` to include boost headers and the sys headers > (e.g., #include <sys/mman.h>) yeah - that is both a good case for making it more general and also a warning that project policies could do something unexpected. > > My concern with making it more general is that it then covers things like > > frameworks which are also included like `<Framework/....>` (of course, it's > > also probably not what was intended there as well) > > Let's add @Bigcheese to the reviewers, for an opinion on Frameworks > > What do you mean by frameworks? Do you mean something used in apple modules? > If yes, the current implementation shouldn't cover that. Since I add this > warning only after we handled import. (in this context) Framework headers are like system (or user headers) but searched by a different mechanism (so they are `#include-`ed). In principle, the same constraints should apply - `<Framework/....>` indicates a "system" header and _**probably**_ should not be included in the module purview. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/69555 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
