bd1976bris wrote: Thanks @c-rhodes,
> the PR title is misleading Can I adjust the PR title? I didn’t want to do so in case it interfered with the automated backport process. > it clearly does a lot more than that. I also see it touches LTO and > lib/Support so it looks like there could be risk outside of DTLTO > but I'm > not sure without looking at the code it changes more clearly and seeing where > else it's used. The changes to the support library are only exercised by DTLTO. There were some minor changes to other support utilities; those changes were mechanical, and the paths are well covered by unit tests and broader test coverage. That said, if the preference is to be especially cautious, I understand the hesitation. > @teresajohnson wdyt about backporting this as maintainer? To add some context on why I proposed the backport: this resolves the last significant usability gap in DTLTO. With this applied, DTLTO in LLVM 22 should handle any link scenario that ThinLTO already supports, without requiring special build system adjustments or environment tweaks. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/181059 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
