ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D134267#3864248 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267#3864248>, @iains wrote:
> I am also OK with doing this in two steps (first in the driver with this > patch and then by updating the FE to allow the two outputs from one > invocation - my draft patch series). For your draft patches, I have only one concern in the high level: if we will/should restrict the module declarations appear in the filenames with special suffixes. Since both @rsmith and MSVC made the same decision. I am not sure if they have special reasons to do so. Maybe I need to search the discussion in SG15 mailing lists. And another related concern (maybe concern is not a good word here) is, if your patches landed, many existing codes may need to be removed. Otherwise, it'll be redundant codes. But this might not be a blocking issue though. > BTW: I did mean to ask before .,, did you consider this (existing) command > syntax? > > `-fmodule-file=[<name>=]<file>` > > and see if it works for your case? (it seems that it should to be consistent). Oh, do you mean we should use `module-file` name since we've used `-fmodule-file` option? Good point. Yeah, it looks like a pity to have 2 terms to describe the same thing. Personally I don't have strong feeling for the option name. If @dblaikie has no other comments on this, I'll follow your suggestion. 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
