From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8340 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2007 00:11:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 8331 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Dec 2007 00:11:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from qb-out-0506.google.com (HELO qb-out-0506.google.com) (72.14.204.228) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:11:10 +0000 Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id p30so151442qba.14 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:11:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.4.3 with SMTP id g3mr763231rvi.116.1197504667860; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:11:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.1.100? ( [216.19.190.48]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k34sm11190181rvb.2007.12.12.16.11.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:11:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC] WHOPR - A whole program optimizer framework for GCC From: Harvey Harrison To: Chris Lattner Cc: Diego Novillo , gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: References: <47603F3C.2090808@google.com> <1197502902.21291.52.camel@brick> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:14:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1197504667.21291.57.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00397.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:02 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Dec 12, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Harvey Harrison wrote: > >> In terms of implementation, we will likely use the LTO branch as a > >> basis. Many of the features we will need are already being > >> implemented > >> in the branch, so we will keep helping with that implementation. > >> > > > > I'm curious how this interacts/complements with any efforts to > > using the LLVM IR in LTO. > > > > Any pointers to where that discussion ended up? > > There are no plans to integrate LLVM with mainline GCC. LLVM > maintains its own permanent fork of GCC, which we periodically sync > up with GCC's progress (e.g. LLVM 2.2 will include a GCC 4.2 based > front-end). There is also work underway to build llvm-native front- > end technology (http://clang.llvm.org). > > If you want LTO today, feel free to go to http://llvm.org/ :) > otherwise LLVM is irrelevant to this discussion. I was more interested in the format of the IR gcc ends up using, I was curious where the discussion had gotten for LTO in gcc-land. The LLVM representation seemed rather sane, and already has at least one implementation of tools using it. Harvey