[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

dblaikie added a comment. In D137059#3973096 , @iains wrote: > In D137059#3973016 , @ben.boeckel > wrote: > >> In D137059#3934448 , @dblaikie >> wrote: >> >>> I'm still

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

iains added a comment. In D137059#3973016 , @ben.boeckel wrote: > In D137059#3934448 , @dblaikie > wrote: > >> I'm still curious what about the details of other compilers - I think from >> the sounds of it,

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

ben.boeckel added a comment. In D137059#3934448 , @dblaikie wrote: > I'm still curious what about the details of other compilers - I think from > the sounds of it, @iains suggested GCC doesn't support this yet so we'll need > to pick/name the flag

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

dblaikie added a comment. @ben.boeckel >> Plus the other compilers offer controls over it; why does Clang have to be >> different? > > Which compilers/flags are you referring to? Arguments from compatibility with > GCC are relatively easy to make (though I still have more hesitance for these

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

ChuanqiXu added a comment. @dblaikie gentle ping~ CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137059/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137059 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

ChuanqiXu updated this revision to Diff 475664. ChuanqiXu added a comment. Use tests with `-###` CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137059/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137059 Files: clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td clang/lib/Driver/Driver.cpp

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

ChuanqiXu added a comment. @ben.boeckel gentle ping~ Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D137059/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D137059 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

dblaikie added a subscriber: rsmith. dblaikie added a comment. In D137059#3899339 , @ben.boeckel wrote: > There is another motivating factor for 1-phase: the build graph is far > simpler. With 2-phase, CMake will have to write out rules to perform: > >

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

ben.boeckel added a comment. In D137059#3904256 , @ChuanqiXu wrote: > In my mind, it is OK for CMake to support one-phase compilation model in the > short term. And the fact that clang also supports the 2-phase compilation > wouldn't affect CMake. Do

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D137059#3899339 , @ben.boeckel wrote: > There is another motivating factor for 1-phase: the build graph is far > simpler. With 2-phase, CMake will have to write out rules to perform: > > - source -> .bmi > - .bmi ->

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

ben.boeckel added a comment. There is another motivating factor for 1-phase: the build graph is far simpler. With 2-phase, CMake will have to write out rules to perform: - source -> .bmi - .bmi -> .withbmi.o - source -> .o because we do not know if a BMI is needed or not. If it isn't we use

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

ChuanqiXu added a comment. > Having a mechanism to specify the place for the file is fine by me ( I was > only commenting on the motivation point for separate pcm and object phases ). > > (I think we should move this discussion somewhere else, again - unless it is > considered a key factor in

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

iains added a comment. In D137059#3898482 , @ChuanqiXu wrote: > In D137059#3898463 , @iains wrote: > >> In D137059#3898239 , @ChuanqiXu >> wrote: >> >>> In

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D137059#3898463 , @iains wrote: > In D137059#3898239 , @ChuanqiXu > wrote: > >> In D137059#3896661 , @dblaikie >> wrote: >> >>> Could you

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

iains added a comment. In D137059#3898239 , @ChuanqiXu wrote: > In D137059#3896661 , @dblaikie > wrote: > >> Could you link to the email/discourse discussion about supporting this mode >> (I think you've linked

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D137059#3896661 , @dblaikie wrote: > Could you link to the email/discourse discussion about supporting this mode > (I think you've linked it in other discussions, be good to have it for > reference here & Probably in the

[PATCH] D137059: [Driver] [Modules] Introduce -fsave-std-c++-module-file= to specify the path of the module file (2/2)

dblaikie added a comment. Could you link to the email/discourse discussion about supporting this mode (I think you've linked it in other discussions, be good to have it for reference here & Probably in the other review)? (I'm wondering if we need a new flag for this, or if it'll be OK to