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.
Apologies for the slow reply. We would like to keep the "Thin"/"T" in the name. This is clearer as we are currently only going to distribute the ThinLTO part and have no plans to distribute the FullLTO part. Making the name more general could confuse users who might then expect in e.g., a mixed Thin+Full link that the Full bitcode part would also be distributed. 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
