bd1976bris wrote: > Some high level comments: > * Should we just call it distributedLTO, or DLTO? Feel like we can drop the > thin part for less typing, and from the user's point of view, using thinLTO > infrastructure is just implementation details.
Thanks! I'll discuss this and get back to you tomorrow. It's worth noting that both `DTLTO` and `DLTO` have the potential to be confusing - given the existence of the current "Bazel-style" (`--thinlto-index-only`) distribution for ThinLTO. > * Are you going to implement some ways to speed up archive or that will come > as follow ups? During previous discussion at dev meeting, there are few > suggestions for how to do it without extracting archives. We plan to do that as follow up work. We will eventually want to support archives. The point of this feature is to make it easy for a user to enable distribution - so we don't want restrictions such as "archives are not supported". I think it would be best to start with an RFC-like discussion thread, we will start preparing that. Thanks to everyone that contributed ideas at the roundtable. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126654 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
