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

[Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org>]

On 12/7/22 10:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2022, 02:30 chuanqi.xcq via Gcc, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org 
> <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>> wrote:
\
> 
>     (2) If (1) is not acceptable and we love to keep the command line
>     consistency, I think clang can use '-fmodule-output=' as long as we make it
>     clear in the document. It will be confusing but it may be the cost clang
>     need to pay for the extension (so I'll vote against strongly if someone want
>     to add some other extensions)
> 
> 
> Given that C++20 modules are in an ISO standard and clang modules aren't, I 
> think it's right that the "simple" name refers to C++20 modules, without 
> requiring "std-c++-modules". It also seems right that the difficulty of 
> distinguishing clang modules from std modules should be dealt with by clang, not 
> by other compilers.

Wait, why does clang want different options to specify the name of the 
clang-module file vs a C++ module file?  It's only in one mode at a time isn't 
it?  And that mode is controlled by other options.  It cannot generate both in a 
single compilation, right?

nathan

-- 
Nathan Sidwell