ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D134267#3864416 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267#3864416>, @ruoso wrote:
> Currently, no. I think we do need a paper to discuss the requirements of the > remote execution protocol and how they relate to the implementation of C++ > modules. > > The simple summary is that one way that remote execution is implemented is by > just wrapping the compiler execution, creating a Merkle tree with all the > inputs, identify all outputs, ship that to a remote worker, and return > another Merkle tree with the outputs. Yeah, it is always better to have standard protocols. So the current state about the suffixes of modules (or `a differently named argument for output files` in your terms) is still need to be discussed. Personally, I agree with the special suffix for the sake of readability. @iains I think your draft patches may be better to be suspended until the SG15 get consensus. From my understanding, the problem may not be related with the client/server modes, right? So I guess this may not block your future works. 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
