From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qv1-xf36.google.com (mail-qv1-xf36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f36]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EE133864A0D for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 00:35:38 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 3EE133864A0D Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-qv1-xf36.google.com with SMTP id h10so11656675qvq.7 for ; Tue, 06 Dec 2022 16:35:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CpBMCJh1zd3S2OUWtiaQQEO6bH+xXCldOlUUjzaWicE=; b=HrWsgwqaAvDJcTBIOpcyjys+z75fAIgqT5UZe/Rf5fc/QAsGFtv1yE7P7RR1XHX63x PzjLjX4RnSt4mLnz463TLYLXWWmArKuphPNC+T3RfEc/E16XHCWdx+VYd8mz/GY7Gdvw PapR7eqDau0nROjdmTRQghRq7kFIenZl6qGpX4rK21V2adz42j/28bYdLLeJQxs9TFzq 13gYTCuSQRBYTfTFfJcgyUWb1vHr2a5e1+gZuOqaoEBMH78aOqogRQS4GIcBZniet79D EDozCvRFqcTK6CMaCZzkRFFbhCjhvq36CvLz68AdMZEidBNfZBN4I9BiZLfk4E9OuG3W +Lww== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=CpBMCJh1zd3S2OUWtiaQQEO6bH+xXCldOlUUjzaWicE=; b=6ksFqxEstVQtvq4xpeis8o0eXnxWDoa2VoHxJDv3oIIAZwVP/tlyDm57UE5J7TgDtz MuvbCRMK7bFyfuAbPougCUlIhAy+uKqcDev4F/Uo9cDTmZ+gpiYGvtIuXkmTiUtKyapf 0zxwIjatpy0nL3Ok7Y2OjGq7hoULKcK+QP+G2pJ4MbWKDfmyhS1jcK/vgjx54O3yj062 X17f2sMqJ6ABpu0ccGM/SWKE73XmWCJc7YTKJCtKhr1uCOPF426nJOJ9kPlNEYpPTK3z JAnqX8WNFT0EOBGuQxserXvvxCVZ7UmpKOWnteb+HJS20Kf2rAPvPxL5J/ueQGLuu3zi pX2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pk/IEwyI88C6PHI4oFSFCOZqbxKtrx92OnLq8sTjg5wCBIfJy7h vVzoxJKXSrwSwhoVRqQgWN0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5JHtF8MNNGZzAoZr5FNibjAzT5gAyakHSLr5UVODR8743eEVth0yDB0EiEedZOtGBic0MxUw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:3c8f:b0:4b4:a3d5:17f7 with SMTP id ok15-20020a0562143c8f00b004b4a3d517f7mr719624qvb.43.1670373337108; Tue, 06 Dec 2022 16:35:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2601:19c:527f:bfd0:cb20:e74:ead7:4cfe? ([2601:19c:527f:bfd0:cb20:e74:ead7:4cfe]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id i22-20020a05620a249600b006f9f714cb6asm16347564qkn.50.2022.12.06.16.35.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Dec 2022 16:35:36 -0800 (PST) Sender: Nathan Sidwell Message-ID: <96699ff0-f4d7-4276-8af7-5a4ce9735174@acm.org> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 19:35:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0 Subject: Re: Naming flag for specifying the output file name for Binary Module Interface files Content-Language: en-US To: David Blaikie , gcc Mailing List , Iain Sandoe , "chuanqi.xcq" References: From: Nathan Sidwell In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3032.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 12/6/22 16:03, David Blaikie wrote: > Over in https://reviews.llvm.org/D137059 we're discussing the naming > of a clang flag - would be good to have it be consistent with GCC. > > The functionality is to name the BMI (.pcm in Clang's parlance) output > file when compiling a C++20 module. > > Current proposal is to use `-fsave-std-cxx-module-file=` which is > certainly precise, but maybe a bit verbose. Clang has some other flags > related to modules that skip the std/cxx parts, and are just > `-fmodule-*` or `-fmodules-*`, so there's some precedent for that too. > > Do GCC folks have any veto votes (is the currently proposed name > especially objectionable/wouldn't be acceptable in GCC) or preferences > (suggestions to add to the pool)? I think the suggested option name is problematic for a number of additional reasons: 1) 'save' -- does it *cause* the bmi to be saved, or is that actually controlled by other options? (I suspect the latter) 2) 'std' -- why is this there. There's only one C++ std, with different variants thereof being temporally selectable. 3) 'cxx' -- why not 'c++'? Let's not let this transliteration of + to x get into the options -- it hasn't in '-std=c++20' for example. Might I suggest something more like '-fmodule-output='? That collates nicely with other -fmodule-$FOO options, and the 'output' part is similar to the mnemonic '-o' for the regular output file naming. (Incidentally, as clang treats the BMI as a step in the compilation pipeline, what do you do if you just want compilation to produce the BMI and no assembly artifact? Does '-o' name the BMI in that case?) nathan -- Nathan Sidwell