romanova-ekaterina 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` > > :)
We prefer to keep DTLTO name. One of the reason is to distinguish our "integrated" distributed appoach from "non-integrated" distributed approach that has been supported for a while. Another reason is to avoid confusion. We have been using this acronim for a while, referring to it in RFCs and in a couple of lightning talks on developer conferences. When we had a round table last LLVM developers conference we brought up this topic about naming one more time and we all agreed to keep DTLTO name. 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
