dblaikie added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Driver/Driver.cpp:5736
+ C.getArgs().hasArg(options::OPT_fmodule_output) &&
+ C.getArgs().hasArg(options::OPT_o)) {
+ SmallString<128> OutputPath;
----------------
tahonermann wrote:
> dblaikie wrote:
> > ChuanqiXu wrote:
> > > dblaikie wrote:
> > > > Is there some way we can avoid this (`-fmodule-output -o ...`) being a
> > > > special case? It'd be good if we could use a single common
> > > > implementation regardless of whether `-o` is used (ie: Figure out the
> > > > output file name (whether it's implicitly determined by clang, in the
> > > > absence of `-o`, or explicitly provided by the user through `-o`) and
> > > > then replace the suffix with `pcm`)?
> > > I guess we can't do it or we can't do it easily. Otherwise the .pcm file
> > > will always lives in the same directory with the input file.
> > > I guess we can't do it or we can't do it easily. Otherwise the .pcm file
> > > will always lives in the same directory with the input file.
> >
> > I don't follow/understand. What I mean is, I'd like it, if possible, this
> > was implemented by something like "find the path for the .o file output,
> > then replace the extension with .pcm".
> >
> > I worry atht code like this that recomputes something similar to the object
> > output path risks getting out of sync with the actual object path.
> That is certainly a valid concern and I agree it would be better if the
> shared output path is computed exactly once. If that would require
> significant change, then tests to ensure consistent behavior would be the
> next best thing. I'm not sure what infrastructure is in place for validation
> of output file locations though.
Well, I guess the Split DWARF file naming isn't fundamentally better - it looks
at the OPT_O argument directly too:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/clang/lib/Driver/ToolChains/CommonArgs.cpp#L1250
Perhaps we could at least reuse this same logic - make it a reusable function
in some way? (for instance, it checks `-c` too, which seems relevant - we
wouldn't want to name the .pcm after the linked executable name, right?
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
