C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: Proposal for module metadata format to be used by the std library and others

From: Daniel Ruoso <daniel_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:45:41 -0500
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 13:45 Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I think someone mentioned it yesterday, but this will presumably have to
> account for multilib libraries in some way.

This is accounted for in the paper that suggested this. The lookup will try
the ISA code before looking for the naked name.

I think it will be necessary to support paths that are relative to some
> other parameterized location to accommodate dependencies on header files or
> modules provided by other projects/packages.

I agree that this is likely going to be necessary eventually, but we can
probably get away under-specifying for now.

Do implementation module units need to be mentioned at all? I'm not opposed
> to allowing for them, but if I'm following correctly, since the metadata
> file is consumed to satisfy module imports, they don't contribute to
> anything that is relevant to import. I would expect is-interface to always
> be true.

We still have internal partitions that may be reachable by the consumer
even if it's not contributing to the external interface.

> Since local-arguments (which I presume to mean compiler command line
> options) are necessarily implementation specific, I think this should
> either be generalized or named such that it reflects an implementation
> dependency.

I am actually considering we can under-specify this for now. Unless someone
can point at a use case where we already need local arguments for the std


Received on 2023-12-13 19:45:52