From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt1-x82e.google.com (mail-qt1-x82e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82e]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 567C13839D0F for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2022 16:43:17 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 567C13839D0F 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-qt1-x82e.google.com with SMTP id a16so1449932qtw.10 for ; Wed, 07 Dec 2022 08:43:17 -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:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=iT1EAvSF7OKH8V+NEtIcsS5/Tq/dDwMSFhafoN9Y/UA=; b=E7epz0Jkozo6SEXs4RFJEN17203HTXIJuhxapFgt6uwtW1PerLknBskcbKj1CSTHo6 HiaXwdcEDwsyijirdSKofYl1tHgOw9KvTq7HCLd9k20/EEdzKFs62Ok5+99gCUDpM5lv RP9gm79dTKovl8xz/HZgFc9GB4A2KS+dlJeL+yghn/PPTz1kL8ca+kwqQnF9awdPOyOo MjIc2cLs+Srs5hpknInt0Glslr6JFc7XCPtxM/cBYzYWSz4wuGfgsl9pXZABW+PoPt00 k1mXqsjWEzit9TvNWQ/639e3VeLt5DNhEPO7v0ihmiwl5fjsP63B79DC+Ts4heCNgcCq B8Vg== 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:cc: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=iT1EAvSF7OKH8V+NEtIcsS5/Tq/dDwMSFhafoN9Y/UA=; b=VyyLW2z0iymn+JfHH6jeqkJt+dgHiZKrWPtXkb2ynJDoD9CkCq4qgPEDDv5TDrPbMY iUu93QoQF6VQLkaANbRCv7xdO7STE0R7Ijkk8MMHXDZ4eeZI3L9Z5x9LH3QGdGirbbir xhldYKmabJhyLLb4WZKjxbxNofzWiK0D0dxrjzGMA0mDAZgTJY0FbNFxh6o+b221FoDt R2Yq7k3t7ovpFILju/c0+1jfLqH+kUBNb8B4vQokt+EBLd9kLtJ/lmyw/e9inlP27gK3 xA8pTXzQii0NMk1dq+IpP0o0qtIMrtd5xtrt5ng3PLzidcT4/CuMU70hTgeFXgM3ooUU lLbA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnk515Ne7GAkWP2D/eGw+rFIRlOoGN0SAda6PiET8Ugpe2ZRdW7 FfmkqciAvf/Sh/PS6k8Z60M= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5Cy1+PqKgFk1O+V28bLGBhpjCHROomYAdDH//uwe2DjFRX9Jmcjp7fZKkBQrUVx4jrZv079A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:2484:b0:3a5:4f6f:da0b with SMTP id cn4-20020a05622a248400b003a54f6fda0bmr1339502qtb.29.1670431396592; Wed, 07 Dec 2022 08:43:16 -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 f4-20020ac80684000000b0039cc64bcb53sm13469650qth.27.2022.12.07.08.43.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Dec 2022 08:43:16 -0800 (PST) Sender: Nathan Sidwell Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 11:43:15 -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: Jonathan Wakely , "chuanqi.xcq" Cc: David Blaikie , gcc Mailing List , Iain Sandoe , Nathan Sidwell , "ben.boeckel" References: <96699ff0-f4d7-4276-8af7-5a4ce9735174@acm.org> From: Nathan Sidwell In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3031.8 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=no 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 12/7/22 10:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 Dec 2022, 02:30 chuanqi.xcq via Gcc, > 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