[Daniel]
> I am 100% in agreement with you here, but my understanding is that
> MSVC will require the flag even when all the inputs and outputs are
> explicitly given in the command line.

Hmm, I am not sure I am picturing this right. Please, could you provide an example to help me get the scenario right?

> Ben should probably be able to confirm or deny that, but as far as I
> understand, in the current implementation being worked on there are no
> implicit inputs nor outputs in play.

What would be an example of that?

> I 100% agree on requiring that flag if you're relying on implicit outputs.

I would love a concrete example to help me walk through why an implicit output is not being asked for in the case of internal partition.

-- Gaby

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Ruoso <daniel_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 6:07 PM
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_microsoft.com>
Cc: Ben Boeckel <ben.boeckel_at_[hidden]>; sg15_at_lists.isocpp.org; Tom Honermann <tom_at_honermann.net>
Subject: Re: [SG15] P2581R0: Specifying the Interoperability of Binary Module Interface Files

Em ter., 3 de mai. de 2022 às 21:02, Gabriel Dos Reis
<gdr_at_[hidden]> escreveu:
> One constraint (by far not the only one) for MSVC (as far as modules are concerned
> with it) is: given these compiler inputs (and options are inputs), they need to know -
> before the compiler runs - what the output (written files are output) are going to be.
> The options are "success with these expected files, or error".
> Just looking around whether the compiler might have left a spare file (or maybe a stale
> file? Or a malicious file?) is not an option.

I am 100% in agreement with you here, but my understanding is that
MSVC will require the flag even when all the inputs and outputs are
explicitly given in the command line.

Ben should probably be able to confirm or deny that, but as far as I
understand, in the current implementation being worked on there are no
implicit inputs nor outputs in play.

I 100% agree on requiring that flag if you're relying on implicit outputs.

daniel