[5.5] PrebuiltModuleGen: check if an interface is for macabi by reading interface contents #856
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…erface contents Previously, we were using the file name to infer whether an interface is for macabi. However, this seems to be inaccurate because some macabi interfaces don't have "-macabi" in the file names. This patch teaches the driver to open interface files and check module target specifically.
|
@swift-ci please test |
airspeedswift
approved these changes
Sep 29, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Explanation: Previously, we were using the file name to infer whether an interface is for macabi.
However, this seems to be inaccurate because some macabi interfaces don't have "-macabi" in
the file names. This patch teaches the driver to open interface files and check
module target specifically.
Scope: Swift prebuilt module generation
Risk: Very low
Testing: regression test added
Reviewed by: @xymus
Cherry-pick of: #855