[PATCH] D11908: Clang support for -fthinlto.

[Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via cfe-commits]

> On 2015-Oct-02, at 08:59, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>> klimek added a comment.
>> 
>> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11908#258570, @tejohnson wrote:
>> 
>>> Sorry for the duplicate - my previous response didn't go to Duncan or Mehdi for some reason. Trying again...
>>> 
>>> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11908#258540, @klimek wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Perhaps "sharded" would fit what it is?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You could have a sharded mode for full FDO (like gcc's partitioned LTO). And we aren't really making any explicit sharding decisions, since the backends do importing on demand.
>>> 
>>> As David mentioned, "inlineonly" is much too restrictive for what is possible. I prefer to stick with "thin" since it refers to this new model of keeping the whole program part very thin.
>>> 
>>> Does anyone have an opinion on "full" vs "monolithic" vs something else for the traditional full/monolithic LTO?
>> 
>> 
>> If "sharded" is not the right term, than "monolithic" doesn't seem like the right term, either, right?
> 
> Right, LLVM's "full" LTO could move to a partitioned/sharded model as
> well. That is more of an implementation issue, not related to the
> model.
> 
>> 
>> If "thin" basically refers to how much information is given to the lto steps (for which "thin" seems to be a good name actually), then "full" seems to be a good term for the, well, full information.
> 
> Ok, thanks. That echos my thinking.
> 

I'm fine with "full".

> Teresa
> 
>> 
>> 
>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D11908
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413