C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [Tooling] Modules feedback

From: Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 23:47:57 +0100
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 23:33 Steve Downey <sdowney_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>> 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*.
>> Source for the module interface. If you don't want to provide details in
> the module interface, then don't. You are no worse off than if you provided
> headers.
> export module my_closed_source;
> export import "my_closed_source_header.h"
> We do need some ground rules for how to consume the source of an interface
> unit. I believe the compiled interface should be in a library, or otherwise
> provided, and the consumer just translate the interface into the bmi,
> because providing a .o and a .a to a posix linker has very different
> effects. The object file is added unconditionally, and its undefs must be
> resolved, where a library is just a source for undef resolution.


> _______________________________________________
> Tooling mailing list
> Tooling_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/tooling

Received on 2019-02-12 23:48:10