romanova-ekaterina 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"? > > Actually, please review whatever you would like to at this point, Theresa. I > don't want to get in the way of hearing what you think - we're keen to your > input. I just wanted to point out that since another branch is coming, you > may wish to wait until it arrives if you think a side-by-side comparison > would be a good way of doing things. To clarify: that other branch won't be > put up as a pull request, but we can decide how to proceed here if the > general design shown in that other branch is preferred. I also mentioned that > it will appear in a few days, but that's really dependent on the results of > some more internal review. We're working hard on it!
The “No backend DTLTO” branch is ready. Please have a look and let us know what you think. https://github.com/romanova-ekaterina/llvm-project/pull/new/kromanova/main/integrated-DTLTO-no-backend This comment [https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127749#issuecomment-2727266591] has more details about the differences between “Out of process (DTLTO) backend” branch and “No backend” DTLTO branch. 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
