cachemeifyoucan wrote: > 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.
I don't have a strong opinion on this but I have basically the same concerns with completely opposite conclusions. To me, the distributed thinLTO makes you think there is a distributed full LTO, while just call it distributed LTO will eliminate that confusion. Distributed LTO is by nature based on thin LTO infrastructure but that doesn't need to be exposed. Isn't the LTO option to be `Full/Thin/Distributed` cleaner? 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
