It looks like `-fmodule-file` is better from the discussion. So let's take it.
Thanks for everyone here~
Thanks,
Chuanqi
------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Nathan Sidwell <[email protected]>
Send Time:2022年12月8日(星期四) 01:00
To:Iain Sandoe <[email protected]>; GCC Development <[email protected]>
Cc:Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]>; chuanqi.xcq
<[email protected]>; David Blaikie <[email protected]>; ben.boeckel
<[email protected]>
Subject:Re: Naming flag for specifying the output file name for Binary Module
Interface files
On 12/7/22 11:58, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>
>> On 7 Dec 2022, at 16:52, Nathan Sidwell via Gcc <[email protected]> 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
