teresajohnson wrote: > > 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"? > > Yes, I think for now it will be better to understand the design of the > current code review that Ben submitted but not to do a detailed code review > just yet. In a few days ago we will propose a new PR for a different > implementation for integrated DTLTO, but without the use of "DTLTO backend". > That's why we call it internally "no-backend DTLTO".
By "DTLTO backend" do you mean the new CGThinBackend class? Since that's a big part of the LLVM piece, I've kind of held off on reviewing for now since I'd like to compare the 2 approaches first and I'm not sure how much is changing. 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
