Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "splitcodegen".
Did you mean:
splitcodegen's
2015 Sep 04
2
RFC: LTO should use -disable-llvm-verifier
...hat's a different thread.
-eric
> —
> Mehdi
>
>
> > or whether the burden on
> > in-tree clients is worth it (there are certainly a number of internal
> APIs
> > that are more clumsy as a result of needing to support libLTO's API; see
> > e.g. llvm::splitCodeGen's return value).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Peter
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-----------...
2015 Sep 03
4
RFC: LTO should use -disable-llvm-verifier
...add new APIs which ld64 promptly starts using, so it isn't
clear how much ld64 gains by relying on libLTO, or whether the burden on
in-tree clients is worth it (there are certainly a number of internal APIs
that are more clumsy as a result of needing to support libLTO's API; see
e.g. llvm::splitCodeGen's return value).
Thanks,
--
Peter
2015 Sep 01
2
RFC: LTO should use -disable-llvm-verifier
> On 2015-Aug-31, at 18:09, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 5:50 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2015-Aug-31, at 12:21, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yep. This is where I was going :)
>
> Glad I found consensus, but I want to
2015 Sep 04
2
RFC: LTO should use -disable-llvm-verifier
...t;
>> —
>> Mehdi
>>
>>
>> > or whether the burden on
>> > in-tree clients is worth it (there are certainly a number of internal
>> APIs
>> > that are more clumsy as a result of needing to support libLTO's API; see
>> > e.g. llvm::splitCodeGen's return value).
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > --
>> > Peter
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > LLVM Developers mailing list
>> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf...