On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 5:59 PM Mathias Stearn <
redbeard0531+isocpp_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 5:50 PM Nathan Sidwell via SG15 <
> sg15_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On 8/29/19 1:02 PM, Olga Arkhipova via SG15 wrote:
>> > I’d like to better understand the reasons why people find new file
>> > extension for module interface sources problematic/undesirable. Can
>> > somebody describe some scenarios where new extension will cause
>> problems
>> > while having modules with old extension will not?
>>
>> The compiler, editor build system & users will all need teaching about
>> the new extension.
>>
>> Some build systems presume the file's basename is sufficiently unique to
>> use as a key.
>>
>
> Also some compilers, including at least clang and gcc. What will the .dwo
> files be named for foo.cpp and foo.cppm? Unfortunately, at the moment I
> don't think there is any way to control that file name, so users and build
> systems won't be able to work around this.
>

Nevermind, that is based on the basename of the output, not the input, so
this will work fine for any buildsystem that includes the extension in the
basename of the object files.


>
>> nathan
>>
>> --
>> Nathan Sidwell
>> _______________________________________________
>> SG15 mailing list
>> SG15_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg15
>>
>