iains added a comment. In D134267#3870064 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267#3870064>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:
> I grepped `options.td` and got (incomplete) list for options to take a output > name: > > # -o and its alias > -o > -object_file_name= > --output= > > /Fa (windows for assembly output filename) > /Fe (windows for output executable file name) > /Fi (windows for preprocessed output filename) > /Fo (Windows for object file) > > -dependency-dot (for DOT-formatted header dependencies) > -dependency-file (to write dependency output to) > > -header-include-file (Filename to write header include output to) > > -opt-record-file (Filename to use for YAML optimization record output) > > -split-dwarf-output (Filename to use for split dwarf debug info output) > > -stack-usage-file (to write stack usage output to) > -coverage-data-file (Emit coverage data to this filename) > -coverage-notes-file (Emit coverage notes to this filename) > > And it looks like the `-file` appears a lot. So may be the suggestion > (`-fc++-module-file-output`) may be better. And for the default location, I > feel like my explanation above makes sense. If the end user wants to produce > .pcm files, they can use `--precompile` just like what they do with `-c` to > get the object files. This only matters with end users since the build > systems should/would chose other positions. OK. I guess the idea about `-fmodule-file=<name>=filename` was that, because the FE will not try to read `filename` (for module-generation cases) we could use it to describe the output file. However, it seems that might be too complex... so `-fc++-module-file-output` seems OK to me. 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
