On 12/7/22 11:58, Iain Sandoe wrote:
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.
Yes, that's why I suggested -fmodule-output=
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
