Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > In short, while this is an important issue, I don't see it as strongly > favoring either side. What it means, essentially, is that LTO is not > quite as much work as it might otherwise seem to be, because we are > going to do some of the work anyhow. So when considering how much > work has to be done for LTO compared to how much work has to be done > for LLVM, we should take that into account. > > This is more or less what you said, of course, but I think with a > different spin.
I agree with what you've written, and you've captured my point (that this effectively reduces the cost of LTO, since it provides something else we want) nicely. Again, I don't think that's a definitive argument; it's just one item to factor in to the overall decision. THanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304
