On Wednesday, March 5th, 2025 at 21:06, Nathaniel Shead via Gcc
wrote:
> Worth noting that GCC already provides a mapper that you can customise:
>
> $ g++ -fmodules -fmodule-mapper='|@g++-module-server -r path' -c m.cpp
>
> for an m.cpp that provides a module "M" will write to 'path/M.gcm'.
E
On Tuesday, March 4th, 2025 at 18:04, Ben Boeckel via Gcc
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 07:53:51 +, vspefs wrote:
>
> > By the way, what's stop us from having compiler options like
> > `g++ -Rgcm.cache -Rsomewhere/else/gcm.cache` to specify CMI repo path, like
> > `-I`
> > for include p
By the way, what's stop us from having compiler options like
`g++ -Rgcm.cache -Rsomewhere/else/gcm.cache` to specify CMI repo path, like `-I`
for include paths? It could be useful for projects with complex folder
structure, as build tools like Make sometimes change current working directory,
and so
On Sunday, March 2nd, 2025 at 02:13, Ben Boeckel via Gcc
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2025 at 16:15:12 +, vspefs wrote:
>
> > I read a few mails from the autoconf thread. I'll try to read all now.
> > However,
> > a maybe-off-topic-but-could-be-on-topic question: what exactly is the state
> >
I read a few mails from the autoconf thread. I'll try to read all now. However,
a maybe-off-topic-but-could-be-on-topic question: what exactly is the state of
Autotools now? The whole Autotools build system seems to be on a very slow
release cycle. They seem to lack enough contributors/maintainers
ia Gcc
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 21:39 vspefs via Gcc gcc@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
>
> > Current `-Mmodules` output is based on P1602R0, which
> > speaks about a set of Makefile rules that can handle modules, with the
> > help of
> > module mappers and a modifi
Current `-Mmodules` output is based on [P1602R0](wg21.link/p1602r0), which
speaks about a set of Makefile rules that can handle modules, with the help of
module mappers and a modified GNU Make.
The proposal came out in 2019, and the output of those rules was implemented
at GCC in 2020. However, so
