C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [isocpp-ext] Can we expect that all C++ source files can have the same suffix?

From: Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs_at_[hidden]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 23:00:49 -0600
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 5:42 AM Boris Kolpackov via Ext <
ext_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > There are environments where the static inputs to the builds and
> > a transcript of the decision making process need to be persisted
> > for post-build auditing (was the build subverted in unsuspected
> > ways?); that is fundamental and non-negotiable in those setups.
> Sure, nothing prevents you from saving the transcripts of the module
> mapper exchange. In fact, build2 does this at a sufficiently high
> verbosity levels along with the command lines to allow the user to
> replay the mapper replies, say, for troubleshooting.
> > I do find values in a module mapper where an interactive
> > development (like active IDE development) can do with dynamic
> > queries. But I am skeptical that it is the answer for all.
> Sure, module mapper approach is not without its complications (I
> even wrote a paper on this). But so far the only proposed alternative
> is to pre-scan the world, which doesn't feel scalable (and, as you
> know, I have doubts it can be implemented correctly for header units).

We have already deployed this for Clang modules. I don't see anything about
header units that would make our approach invalid. It's also quite
scalable, and we start dispatching module builds while scanning
non-importable units.

- Michael Spencer

> _______________________________________________
> Ext mailing list
> Ext_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ext
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/ext/2022/04/19015.php

Received on 2022-05-06 05:01:03