On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Manuel Klimek <kli...@google.com> wrote: > 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?
Right, LLVM's "full" LTO could move to a partitioned/sharded model as well. That is more of an implementation issue, not related to the model. > > 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. Ok, thanks. That echos my thinking. Teresa > > > http://reviews.llvm.org/D11908 > > > -- Teresa Johnson | Software Engineer | tejohn...@google.com | 408-460-2413 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
