[clang] [lld] [llvm] Integrated Distributed ThinLTO (DTLTO): Initial support (PR #126654)

[Teresa Johnson via cfe-commits]

teresajohnson wrote:

> > I'm fine with DTLTO as a shorthand for "integrated distributed ThinLTO".
> > Great! I'm glad that you support this acronim too. :)
> 
> > BTW thanks for sending the LLVM patch, I will review that tonight or more likely tomorrow.
> 
> Teresa, when reviewing, could you please focus on the design/idea rather than doing a full-fledged code review? In a day or two we will submit another PR for "no-backend" DTLTO implementation. We are doing final "touches" to this PR now.
> 
> No-backend DLTO implementation has some important benefits/advantages. So, I guess, at this time, it will be most important to understand both designs (i.e. current implementation with DTLTO backend that Ben submitted and the alternative "no DTLTO backend" implementation that we submit a couple of from now), rather than focusing on details of implementations/nikpicks of this particular PR.
> 
> I will try to do my best to explain the differences between both designs at the time of submission.
> 
> Hopefully, it will help us to choose the best design for using upstream or potentially do a hybrid solution, choosing the best ideas from both designs.

Thanks for the heads up, so I should not do a detailed code review for PR127749? Is there more info on what you mean by a "no-backend DTLTO"?

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/126654