[llvm-dev] [LLVMdev] RFC: ThinLTO File Format
Philip Reames via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Aug 12 11:50:31 PDT 2015
Alex already made what I consider to be the most relevant point. I
would suggest removing the unwanted functionality and asking again.
From my perspective, native wrapped bitcode is only interesting (and
thus worth reviewing and/or talking about) once the native bitcode
version is in tree and functional. Frankly, I consider the native
wrapped bitcode to be an entirely orthogonal proposal that shouldn't be
tied to ThinLTO at all.
Fair warning, I'm not going to be particularly involved either way.
This is far enough from my own immediate interests that I can't spare
the cycles. I would suggest that you collaborate closely with the Sony
and Apple folks who are already *using* LTO to find a proposal they're
happy with. Until you do that, you are unlikely to make much progress.
On 08/12/2015 09:13 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Ping. Explicitly adding a few more people who commented on the earlier
> (high-level) ThinLTO RFC. I removed the body of the RFC here since the
> original was large and had trouble getting through the mailer. I also
> updated the patch mentioned below so that it was emailed to
> llvm-commits properly.
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com
> <mailto:tejohnson at google.com>> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> After outlining some of the rationale for using native-wrapped,
> there were a couple of responses that indicated native-wrapped
> support was reasonable, but they preferred to see bitcode-only
> first (Phillip and Rafael). This is essentially what this proposal
> and the patches do - I've implemented some of the basic support
> for looking for and parsing the native-wrapped sections, but the
> bitcode-only reading/writing support is more complete.
> In fact, as described in this RFC, I designed the native-wrapped
> format to utilize the same bitcode encoding for most of the
> ThinLTO information, so it uses most of the same underlying
> bitcode interfaces anyway. The additional support required for
> native-wrapped is not tremendous, and is similar to existing
> support in the LLVM tree for reading native-wrapped bitcode.
> We believe that there will be clang/llvm users who will find
> native-wrapped ThinLTO easier to use for the same reasons (e.g.
> compatibility with existing native toolchains), so I don't expect
> this to be Google specific.
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Alex Rosenberg
> <alexr at leftfield.org <mailto:alexr at leftfield.org>> wrote:
> I think I've read all the feedback posted regarding your May
> proposal. I have yet to see a single response that wants
> native object wrapped bitcode.
> If the only use for native object wrapped bitcode is for your
> project at Google, then it probably shouldn't go into the tree
> against all of these objections.
> On Aug 3, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Teresa Johnson
> <tejohnson at google.com <mailto:tejohnson at google.com>> wrote:
>> As discussed in the high-level ThinLTO RFC
>> we would like to add support for native object wrapped
>> bitcode and ThinLTO information. Based on comments on the
>> mailing list, I am adding support for ThinLTO in both normal
>> bitcode files, as well as native-object wrapped bitcode.
>> The following RFC describes the planned file format of
>> ThinLTO information both in the bitcode-only and native
>> object wrapped cases. It doesn't yet define the exact record
>> format, as I would like feedback on the overall block design
>> I've also implemented the support for reading and writing the
>> bitcode blocks in the following patch:
>> The ThinLTO data structures and the file APIs are described
>> in a separate RFC I will be sending simultaneously, with
>> pointers to the patches implementing them.
>> Looking forward to your feedback. Thanks!
> Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com
> <mailto:tejohnson at google.com> | 408-460-2413
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev