This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: LTO, LLVM, etc.
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
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304