> On 2015-Oct-02, at 08:59, Teresa Johnson <tejohn...@google.com> wrote: > > 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. >
I'm fine with "full". > 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