romanova-ekaterina 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. 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
