[6.0 🍒][Dependency Scanning] Apply -clang-scanner-module-cache-path
to header Clang module dependencies
#74874
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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: Clang module dependencies of (Bridging) headers incorrectly did not respect
-clang-scanner-module-cache-path
, and when it was set, were always output into the scanner cache directory. Whereas depending clients expected them in the non-scanner cache directory. This discrepancy caused missing.pcm
compilation failures. This change fixes the discrepancy.Scope: This change only affects Explicit Module Builds (opt-in) which also opt-in to using a separate
-clang-scanner-module-cache-path
setting. On such builds, it affects the ability to compile modular dependencies of Bridging Headers.Issue/Radar: rdar://117024665
Original PR: [Dependency Scanning] Apply
-clang-scanner-module-cache-path
to header Clang module dependencies #74872Risk: Low. Previously, this configuration resulted in build failures 100% of the time when building modular dependencies of bridging headers with
-clang-scanner-module-cache-path
. Now such builds will succeed. Other dependency path code-paths are not affected.Testing: Automated test added to the compiler test suite.
Reviewers: @owenv, @cachemeifyoucan