iains added a comment. In D134267#3868830 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267#3868830>, @dblaikie wrote:
> I'm OK with sticking with the existing `-fmodule-file` if that works for > everyone. Yeah, it's short and ambiguous in a space with many concepts of > what a "module file" is, but also the fact that it's a `-f` flag might help > disambiguate it a bit - it's probably not the way anyone would think/expect > to be passing source files, those just get passed without flags on the > command line. And any use of it will show the .pcm extension or whatever that > should make it clear enough what's going on. hmm (I realise I mentioned this, and hope it has not complicated things) .. .. I was thinking of the `-fmodule-file=<name>=filename` variant. The problem with using it without (the <name>) is that -fmodule-file= can (and does) appear multiple times on the command line to specify dependent modules - so that one would have to specify which (named) module was related to the filename. In a pre-scanned world, the build system does know the info for each source file (published and dependent modules) [which ought to dispel some of the concerns raised about not knowing about possible outputs for implementation/interface cases]. In a discovery world, the interface to the build system carries all of this traffic anyway so that the command line would only be providing pre-set data for that. .. and we do not care about header units in this discussion since they have to be handled specially anyway. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
