romanova-ekaterina wrote:
> In a couple of days, we will submit an alternative PR with "no DTLTO backend" > implementation. Though from the first sight it seems logical to use a > separate DTLTO backend, we thought that "no DTLTO backend" implementation > will be simpler, cleaner and more importantly, will leave a solid foundation > for future important performance enhancements that are planning to add in the > future. These performance enhancements will be impossible to implement within > DTLTO backend. Actually, we don't have any data to determine whether or not these ideas for performance enhancements translate into real world gains. So, let's perhaps revisit these in subsequent PRs, assuming we get something landed for starters, here. 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
