C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: P2581R0: Specifying the Interoperability of Binary Module Interface Files

From: Daniel Ruoso <daniel_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 20:49:41 -0400
Em ter., 3 de mai. de 2022 às 20:44, Gabriel Dos Reis
<gdr_at_[hidden]> escreveu:
> Actually, given what I've gone through since 2015 and all the unfounded accusations
> that being levelled at me, I have every reason to worry about it. Sorry, that is my
> experience with WG21 and the C++ devtool ecosystem.

Sorry you went through that, I hope you don't see this as an attack to
you personally.

> > I was discussing this today on C++Now with a few folks, and after
> > re-reading the standard, I think I agree with the opinion that
> > requiring an additional flag to produce the binary module interface of
> > non-exportable module partitions seems like a bug in MSVC to me.
> I would like to understand better the logical steps that lead to that conclusion

It's not a "language lawyer" kind of bug. This is an ergonomics bug.

MSVC is requiring an additional flag when it would be perfectly fine
(at least on this particular version of the standard) to just produce
the BMI in all cases.

I don't have the full context on the decision for why that flag was
added, but I cannot see from the current point in time why that flag
should be required.


Received on 2022-05-04 00:49:53