<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. Â  <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>  Â  Â  Â  Â <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>