ChuanqiXu added a comment.
> so I can appreciate the -fsave-std-c++-module-file name here, but it does
> sound a bit verbose?
My thought is the option is mainly used by build systems so that the users
wouldn't type it frequently. In this case, I feel it might not be bad to make
it a little bit redundant. Someone's redundancy is another's readability : )
> Hmm, I don't mind that too much (& as you say, '-fobject-only' - though that
> flag is maybe too vague?) - but it does mean we'd need a separate flag to
> name the .pcm output file, because that flag ('-fmodule-only') wouldn't be
> present in all cases where the pcm is generated, only when it's
> pcm-but-no-object. Maybe less "exclusionary" flag names and more explicit
> (like '-fbuild-the-binary-module' and '-fbuild-the-object'). I guess most C++
> GCC options ( https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Option-Summary.html ) don't
> include "C++" in them, but the modules ones mostly include "module".
If this paragraph only talks about the GCC?
> We could get out in front, planning for the world in which BMIs are really
> only the interface (& whatever else we want to carry for optimizing /use/ of
> that interface, but not complete enough to be usable for generating the
> modules object) and use -fmodule-interface[=] (skipping the 'binary' part)
> and -fmodule-implementation or -fmodule-object (which could go either way -
> default on or off, but provide -fno-module-object to do the "generate PCM
> only")?
For clang, I would like to add `c++` in the option name since users are really
easy to get confused with the existing clang modules. I've met many such
cases. And for the proposal it self, I feel it is complex and hard to
understand.
>> GCC has "-fmodule-only" for which I have a patch (also unpublished) that
>> aliases that to --precompile in the driver.
This idea sounds good to me. But I would like to suggest to change the name to
`-fc++-module-interface-only`. Due to the same reason above. The name
`-fmodule-only` is not clear especially in the context of clang now.
> Only other minor thing might be singular V plural - some of Clang's flags are
> -fmodules and others are -fmodule - any sense of what's likely to work
> better? (be nice to unify/standardize on one or the other, I can see having
> variation there might make for frustrating usability trying to remember which
> is which)
Yeah, sometimes it is frustrating. But I think we can't unify the existing
options. It'd cause many breaking changes. And for `module` and `modules`, I
prefer `module` a little more in practice.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137058/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137058
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
