[llvm-dev] [LLVMdev] RFC: ThinLTO File Format

[Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev]

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.

Thanks,
Teresa

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>
wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Teresa
>
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On Aug 3, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> As discussed in the high-level ThinLTO RFC (
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html), 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> I've also implemented the support for reading and writing the bitcode
>> blocks in the following patch:
>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D11722
>> <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=>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Looking forward to your feedback. Thanks!
>> Teresa
>>
>>
>>

-- 
Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohnson at google.com | 408-460-2413
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150812/5226ab65/attachment.html>