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

[via llvm-commits]

bd1976bris wrote:

> I don't have a strong opinion on this but I have basically the same concerns with completely opposite conclusions. To me, the distributed thinLTO makes you think there is a distributed full LTO, while just call it distributed LTO will eliminate that confusion. Distributed LTO is by nature based on thin LTO infrastructure but that doesn't need to be exposed. 

Accepted. I think it might be worth appealing to authority here. I wonder if @MaskRay or @teresajohnson have an opinion?

> Isn't the LTO option to be `Full/Thin/Distributed` cleaner? 

Sorry, I don't entirely understand this bit, could you expand on this a bit. Are you envisioning an interface like:
clang -flto                     -> FullLTO
clang -flto=thin            -> ThinLTO
clang -flto=distributed -> DTLTO

> You can still keep `DTLTO` for `DisTributed LTO`

:)


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