> On 7 Dec 2022, at 16:52, Nathan Sidwell via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/7/22 11:18, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>> I think it is reasonable to include c++ in the spelling, since other
>> languages supported by
>> GCC (and clang in due course) have modules.
>
> I disagree (about the reasonableness part). Other languages have modules,
> true, but if they want to name the output file, why not have the same option
> spelling?
>
> I.e. why are we considering:
>
> $compiler -fc++-module-file=bob foo.cc
> $compiler -ffortran-module-file=bob foo.f77
>
> The language is being selected implicitly by the file suffix (or explictly
> via -X$lang). There's no reason for some other option controlling an aspect
> of the compilation to rename the language. We don't do it for
> language-specific warning options, and similar. (i.e. no
> -f[no-]c++-type-aliasing vs -fc-type-aliasing, nor -Wc++-extra vs -Wc-extra[*]
Fair points.
Unfortunately (in case it has not already been mentioned in this thread)
‘-fmodule-file=‘ is already taken and it means an input, not an output. So,
whatever we choose it needs to be distinct from that.
Iain
