[PATCH] D134267: [C++] [Modules] Support one phase compilation model for named modules

[Iain Sandoe via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

iains added a comment.

In D134267#3869614 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267#3869614>, @dblaikie wrote:

> In D134267#3869162 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267#3869162>, @iains wrote:
>
>> In D134267#3868830 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267#3868830>, @dblaikie wrote:
>>
>>> I'm OK with sticking with the existing `-fmodule-file` if that works for everyone. Yeah, it's short and ambiguous in a space with many concepts of what a "module file" is, but also the fact that it's a `-f` flag might help disambiguate it a bit - it's probably not the way anyone would think/expect to be passing source files, those just get passed without flags on the command line. And any use of it will show the .pcm extension or whatever that should make it clear enough what's going on.
>>
>> hmm (I realise I mentioned this, and hope it has not complicated things) ..
>>
>> .. I was thinking of the `-fmodule-file=<name>=filename` variant.  The problem with using it without (the <name>) is that -fmodule-file= can (and does) appear multiple times on the command line to specify dependent modules - so that one would have to specify which (named) module was related to the filename.



> I /think/ currently `-fmodule-file` works with Clang header modules presumably because the module files contain within them enough information to enable the compiler to substitute the module for an include where necessary? I'm not sure the `<name>=` part is necessary, as such, if the BMIs can reasonably contain enough identifying info to make their use clear to the consumer.

`-fmodule-file=` works with both `clang` modules  and standard C++ ones.  What it does (as of now) is cause the FE to open the named file and to pre-load the module name - so that when the FE tries to find a module the lookup mechanism can associate the module name with the module data.  So, if we need 3 dependent modules to be available when building a new source .. we would specify the PCM files containing those modules.

At present, if you try to specify a non-existent PCM using `-fmodule-file=` the compile will fail early on (it is expecting this to indicate a source module, not a destination one).

However, the second syntax `-fmodule-file=<name>=filename` I think should be able to work around this (since it says that the named module <name> is associated with the PCM `filename` which would allow us to cater for that file being missing (when we are creating it).

Does that clarify at all ?

It would be great not to add more modules options flags, there are already way to many :/ - but if this seems too complex then one of the spellings suggested by @ChuanqiXu would work.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D134267