C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [Tooling] Modules feedback

From: Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.floss_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:38:52 -0500
On 12/02/2019 15.02, JF Bastien wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:50 AM Ben Boeckel wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 19:32:45 +0000, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> IPR isn’t for distribution.
>> OK. Substitute whatever format we end up using for distribution of
>> modules within RPM, DPKG, vcpkg, ports, etc. It just can't be "nothing"
>> because otherwise modules are effectively only useful in monorepo
>> build-the-world-from-scratch projects. Which is not how C++ works today
>> in the realm of FOSS. And it is best if that format is compatible
>> between otherwise-compatible compilers too.
> Can you elaborate on how modules are useless. You seem to say that a
> codebase can't use TS modules if any of its dependencies (including
> internal to that project!) aren't also modularized. I don't understand why
> that would be the case.

Huh? I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion...

No, the problem is that libraries are distributed, and users use
distributed libraries. In order for these libraries to be modularized,
they have to ship something that allows BMI's to be generated.

Right now, they ship headers. They can't ship BMI's because BMI's are
not portable across compilers or quite possibly even compiler versions.
Shipping raw source will not be an option for non-open-source libraries.

We need an intermediate representation that is *portable*.


Received on 2019-02-12 21:38:55