[PATCH] D22173: Move LTO.cpp to a new LTOResolution library.

[Teresa Johnson via llvm-commits]

I don't remember if it was theoretical or if I tried this and ran into
issues. Thinking about it some more now - I suppose adding new dependence
from clang to llvm should never introduce a circular dependence? So I don't
know what I was concerned about...

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Mehdi AMINI <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:

> mehdi_amini added a comment.
>
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D22173#479018, @pcc wrote:
>
> > > If we're just dealing with legacy here, I'd just move all these into
> include/llvm/LTO/legacy/ instead.
> >
> >
> > I think that would work as well, but I wanted to make a clean break.
> >
> > We'll also have LTOBackend.cpp which will be used by clang. I think
> Teresa mentioned some problems depending on the existing LTO library from
> clang
>
>
> Teresa, can you refresh us on this aspect?
>
>
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D22173
>
>
>
>


-- 
Teresa Johnson |  Software Engineer |  tejohnson at google.com |  408-460-2413
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160708/cffe9273/attachment.html>