We also need to account for scenarios where one single container hosts several BMIs (for several modules), or where the BMI is embedded either in the .a or the .so (or equivalent) to provide self-describing artifacts less disconnected (your header units aren’t out-of-sync with the object files anymore). I don’t think that does violence to the unixy world.

-- Gaby

From: SG15 <sg15-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Steve Downey via SG15
Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 5:44 PM
To: Olga Arkhipova <olgaark_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Steve Downey <sdowney_at_gmail.com>; ISO C++ Tooling Study Group <sg15_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [SG15] Meeting on February 4th at 9AM Pacific



On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:07 PM Olga Arkhipova <olgaark_at_[hidden]<mailto:olgaark_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
The compiler will have to find all BMIs so their locations should be defined by some command line options.
My point is that the same options can be used to find the .d.json files.

Thanks,
Olga
I agree that if the build system can figure out how to do one, it can do the other, as long as there is some discernible relationship between the bmi and the .d.json file. But in a typical unixy environment, libraries and other artifacts to be consumed are not separated out. Perhaps, though the bmi and .d.json both live together in an isolated filesystem-like thing based on the module name? E.g. a directory or zip file, or some such. On the other hand, since .d.json is intended to be portable, I would expect to find it in something like /usr/share/module_${name} in an FHS style system? Or if a library provides multiple modules, underneath /usr/share/lib${name}/?
Replace /usr with /usr/local/, ~, ${etcetera}, etc above.

(sorry I sent this only to Olga, now replying on list, Olga if you reply, either here or add the list back?)