On Wed, 7 Dec 2022, 00:36 Nathan Sidwell via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> On 12/6/22 16:03, David Blaikie wrote: > > Over in https://reviews.llvm.org/D137059 we're discussing the naming > > of a clang flag - would be good to have it be consistent with GCC. > > > > The functionality is to name the BMI (.pcm in Clang's parlance) output > > file when compiling a C++20 module. > > > > Current proposal is to use `-fsave-std-cxx-module-file=` which is > > certainly precise, but maybe a bit verbose. Clang has some other flags > > related to modules that skip the std/cxx parts, and are just > > `-fmodule-*` or `-fmodules-*`, so there's some precedent for that too. > > > > Do GCC folks have any veto votes (is the currently proposed name > > especially objectionable/wouldn't be acceptable in GCC) or preferences > > (suggestions to add to the pool)? > > I think the suggested option name is problematic for a number of > additional reasons: > > 1) 'save' -- does it *cause* the bmi to be saved, or is that actually > controlled > by other options? (I suspect the latter) > > 2) 'std' -- why is this there. There's only one C++ std, with different > variants thereof being temporally selectable. > > 3) 'cxx' -- why not 'c++'? Let's not let this transliteration of + to x > get > into the options -- it hasn't in '-std=c++20' for example. > > Might I suggest something more like '-fmodule-output='? That collates > nicely > with other -fmodule-$FOO options, and the 'output' part is similar to the > mnemonic '-o' for the regular output file naming. > That's also much shorter and easier to remember than the five(!) words in the original suggestion.
