klimek added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11908#258570, @tejohnson wrote:
> Sorry for the duplicate - my previous response didn't go to Duncan or Mehdi > for some reason. Trying again... > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D11908#258540, @klimek wrote: > > > Perhaps "sharded" would fit what it is? > > > You could have a sharded mode for full FDO (like gcc's partitioned LTO). And > we aren't really making any explicit sharding decisions, since the backends > do importing on demand. > > As David mentioned, "inlineonly" is much too restrictive for what is > possible. I prefer to stick with "thin" since it refers to this new model of > keeping the whole program part very thin. > > Does anyone have an opinion on "full" vs "monolithic" vs something else for > the traditional full/monolithic LTO? If "sharded" is not the right term, than "monolithic" doesn't seem like the right term, either, right? If "thin" basically refers to how much information is given to the lto steps (for which "thin" seems to be a good name actually), then "full" seems to be a good term for the, well, full information. http://reviews.llvm.org/D11908 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
