[LLVMdev] RFC: ThinLTO Impementation Plan

[Eric Christopher]

>
>
> > The binutils part :)
>
> I took it as the more general: "we want to simply work with native
> toolchains", not as something specific to binutils.
>
>
Been since clarified by Teresa :)


> > Oh, I understood. I just don't know that I agree.
>
> Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a misunderstanding
> here :)
>
>
:)


> > To do anything with the
> > tools will require some knowledge of bitcode anyhow or need the plugin.
>
> This is certainly true, but that's part of the point - the ability to
> pass through native tools without them  breaking, or worrying about
> the bitcode there.
>
>
Except I'm saying that those tools are mostly going to be useless :)

Anyhow, see other reply to Teresa I think for how I'm laying this out.


> (I actually have no real dog in this fight, just trying to make sure
> everyone is on the same page ;P)
>

FWIW I honestly don't either, just trying to figure out what's the best set
of implementation choices for the project.

-eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150514/cc8b7b28/attachment.html>