ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> The reproducer turned out to be pretty simple:
>
> ```c++
> export module a;
> module :private;
> static void f() {}
> void g() {
> f();
> }
> ```
>
> Compiles without that patch, otherwise produces:
>
> ```
> error: no matching function for call to 'f'
> ```
>
> > Oh, sorry, I took another look at the commit and it looks the change makes
> > it not a NFC change is this line:
> > [99873b3#diff-6fe53759e8d797c328c73ada5f3324c6248a8634ef36131c7eb2b9d89192bb64R6514](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/99873b35da7ecb905143c8a6b8deca4d4416f1a9#diff-6fe53759e8d797c328c73ada5f3324c6248a8634ef36131c7eb2b9d89192bb64R6514)
> > This shouldn't be in that commit but in this commit. It is not intentional.
> > I guess we can't observe that if we put that in this PR too. And that
> > change looks not bad. So maybe it makes something already bad to show up.
>
> Even without that change, the other changes are too complex, and there are
> other suspicious things you wouldn't expect in an NFC commit which doesn't
> call this out specifically, like the removal of that whole block with the
> FIXME included.
>
> I think the appropriate tag for such commits would be NFCI, and should still
> require PR and review.
Thanks for the reproducer and the information about NFCI. It looks like I took
an oversight in the refactoring of `isInAnotherModuleUnit` that I missed the
case about private module fragment.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75912
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
