bd1976bris wrote: > 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.
Accepted. I think it might be worth appealing to authority here. I wonder if @MaskRay or @teresajohnson have an opinion? > Isn't the LTO option to be `Full/Thin/Distributed` cleaner? Sorry, I don't entirely understand this bit, could you expand on this a bit. Are you envisioning an interface like: clang -flto -> FullLTO clang -flto=thin -> ThinLTO clang -flto=distributed -> DTLTO > You can still keep `DTLTO` for `DisTributed LTO` :) 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
