It looks like `-fmodule-file` is better from the discussion. So let's take it. Thanks for everyone here~ Thanks, Chuanqi ------------------------------------------------------------------ From:Nathan Sidwell Send Time:2022年12月8日(星期四) 01:00 To:Iain Sandoe ; GCC Development Cc:Jonathan Wakely ; chuanqi.xcq ; David Blaikie ; ben.boeckel 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 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