Re: Naming flag for specifying the output file name for Binary Module Interface files

[chuanqi.xcq]

It looks like `-fmodule-file` is better from the discussion. So let's take it. Thanks for everyone here~
Thanks,
Chuanqi
------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org>
Send Time:2022年12月8日(星期四) 01:00
To:Iain Sandoe <iain@sandoe.co.uk>; GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc:Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>; chuanqi.xcq <yedeng.yd@linux.alibaba.com>; David Blaikie <dblaikie@gmail.com>; ben.boeckel <ben.boeckel@kitware.com>
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 <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