<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div>Alex already made what I consider to be
the most relevant point. I would suggest removing the unwanted
functionality and asking again. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I find your definition of 'unwanted' too narrow -- there are certainly users who may want this. It would be a more productive discussion if the comments can be made on the details of the RFCs themselves.</div><div> </div><div><br></div><div>David</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div>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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Philip<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 08/12/2015 09:13 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:<br>
</div></div></div><div><div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>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.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Teresa</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:59 AM,
Teresa Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tejohnson@google.com" target="_blank">tejohnson@google.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Alex,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Teresa</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at
12:26 PM, Alex Rosenberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alexr@leftfield.org" target="_blank">alexr@leftfield.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
<br>
Alex</div>
<div>
<div><br>
On Aug 3, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Teresa Johnson
<<a href="mailto:tejohnson@google.com" target="_blank">tejohnson@google.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">As discussed in the
high-level ThinLTO RFC <span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">(</span><a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html" style="font-size:12.8000001907349px" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html</a><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">),
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.</span>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">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 first.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">I've
also implemented the support for
reading and writing the bitcode
blocks in the following patch:</span></div>
<div><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D11722&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=Mfk2qtn1LTDThVkh6-oGglNfMADXfJdty4_bhmuhMHA&m=oUy_PB_mSfRgDO7H7bZOR04gv_DMzX5rPO_lv4PHt60&s=WVxrKkHnjKr75fCQ-UkGke8dk6KpZcFCnLWVrJ3G188&e=" rel="noreferrer" style="font-size:12.8000001907349px" target="_blank">http://reviews.llvm.org/D11722</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Looking forward to your feedback.
Thanks!</div>
<div>Teresa</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span>
<p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:center"><br>
</p>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div><span style="font-family:Times;font-size:medium">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr style="color:rgb(85,85,85);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:small">
<td style="border-top-style:solid;border-top-color:rgb(213,15,37);border-top-width:2px" nowrap>Teresa Johnson |</td>
<td style="border-top-style:solid;border-top-color:rgb(51,105,232);border-top-width:2px" nowrap> Software Engineer |</td>
<td style="border-top-style:solid;border-top-color:rgb(0,153,57);border-top-width:2px" nowrap> <a href="mailto:tejohnson@google.com" target="_blank">tejohnson@google.com</a> |</td>
<td style="border-top-style:solid;border-top-color:rgb(238,178,17);border-top-width:2px" nowrap> <a href="tel:408-460-2413" value="+14084602413" target="_blank">408-460-2413</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>