Hello all. > On 9 Dec 2022, at 01:58, chuanqi.xcq <yedeng...@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: > > It looks like `-fmodule-file` is better from the discussion. So let's take > it. Thanks for everyone here
So FAOD (after this discussion) Chuanqi's current patchset implements the following in clang: -fmodule-output - this causes the BMI to be saved in the CWG with the basename of the source file and a suffix of .pcm. -fmodule-output=<path> - this causes the BMI to be saved at the path specified. === These facilities support build systems that do not use the P1184 interface to map between module names and paths. cheers Iain > > Thanks, > Chuanqi > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > From:Nathan Sidwell <nat...@acm.org> > Send Time:2022年12月8日(星期四) 01:00 > To:Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk>; GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > Cc:Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com>; chuanqi.xcq > <yedeng...@linux.alibaba.com>; David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com>; > ben.boeckel <ben.boec...@kitware.com> > Subject:Re: Naming flag for specifying the output file name for Binary Module > Interface files > > On 12/7/22 11:58, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > > > > >> On 7 Dec 2022, at 16:52, Nathan Sidwell via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> > >> On 12/7/22 11:18, Iain Sandoe wrote: > >> > >>> I think it is reasonable to include c++ in the spelling, since other > >>> languages supported by > >>> GCC (and clang in due course) have modules. > >> > >> I disagree (about the reasonableness part). Other languages have modules, > >> true, but if they want to name the output file, why not have the same > >> option spelling? > >> > >> I.e. why are we considering: > >> > >> $compiler -fc++-module-file=bob foo.cc > >> $compiler -ffortran-module-file=bob foo.f77 > >> > >> The language is being selected implicitly by the file suffix (or explictly > >> via -X$lang). There's no reason for some other option controlling an > >> aspect of the compilation to rename the language. We don't do it for > >> language-specific warning options, and similar. (i.e. no > >> -f[no-]c++-type-aliasing vs -fc-type-aliasing, nor -Wc++-extra vs > >> -Wc-extra[*] > > > > Fair points. > > > > Unfortunately (in case it has not already been mentioned in this thread) > > ‘-fmodule-file=‘ is already taken and it means an input, not an output. > > So, whatever we choose it needs to be distinct from that. > > Yes, that's why I suggested -fmodule-output= > > nathan > > -- > Nathan Sidwell
