-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.5k
[Dependency Scanning] Emit a detailed error diagnostic on Clang module variant discovery #81313
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
@swift-ci test |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I take it there are no tests because you don't know of even an artificial way to induce this condition? Fair enough.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
a few nits but overall looks good & thank you!
seemingly due to differences in Clang Scanner direct by-name queries and transitive header lookup queries.
I don't know if every case can be attributed to that, for example, there is one case where we don't have a reproducer but it didn't seem like there was a search issue since the modulemaps resolve the same but still have different hashes.
…e variant discovery In expectation, this should never happen. Such a situation means that within the same scanning action, Clang Dependency Scanner has produced two different variants of the same module. This is not supposed to happen, but we are currently hunting down the rare cases where it does, seemingly due to differences in Clang Scanner direct by-name queries and transitive header lookup queries.
c3dce5b
to
4b26a3d
Compare
Unfortunately, yes. |
@swift-ci smoke test |
In expectation, this should never happen. Such a situation means that within the same scanning action, Clang Dependency Scanner has produced two different variants of the same module. This is not supposed to happen, but we are currently hunting down the rare cases where it does, seemingly due to differences in Clang Scanner direct by-name queries and transitive header lookup queries.