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

[Katya Romanova via llvm-commits]

romanova-ekaterina 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`
> 
> :)

We prefer to keep DTLTO name. One of the reason is to distinguish our "integrated" distributed 
appoach from "non-integrated" distributed approach that has been supported for a while.
Another reason is to avoid confusion. We have been using this acronim for a while,
referring to it in RFCs and in a couple of lightning talks on developer conferences. When we had a round table last LLVM developers conference we brought up this topic about naming one more time and we all agreed to keep DTLTO name.


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