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
