teresajohnson wrote: > > I'm fine with DTLTO as a shorthand for "integrated distributed ThinLTO". > > Great! I'm glad that you support this acronim too. :) > > > BTW thanks for sending the LLVM patch, I will review that tonight or more > > likely tomorrow. > > Teresa, when reviewing, could you please focus on the design/idea rather than > doing a full-fledged code review? In a day or two we will submit another PR > for "no-backend" DTLTO implementation. We are doing final "touches" to this > PR now. > > No-backend DLTO implementation has some important benefits/advantages. So, I > guess, at this time, it will be most important to understand both designs > (i.e. current implementation with DTLTO backend that Ben submitted and the > alternative "no DTLTO backend" implementation that we submit a couple of from > now), rather than focusing on details of implementations/nikpicks of this > particular PR. > > I will try to do my best to explain the differences between both designs at > the time of submission. > > Hopefully, it will help us to choose the best design for using upstream or > potentially do a hybrid solution, choosing the best ideas from both designs.
Thanks for the heads up, so I should not do a detailed code review for PR127749? Is there more info on what you mean by a "no-backend DTLTO"? 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
