dblaikie added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1282369, @grimar wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296#1281642, @echristo wrote: > > > Can you elaborate on your motivations and what you're trying to do? > > > > Thanks! > > > We want to see: > > - No extra files. The compiler produces just a .o. > - The linker leaves most debug info in the .o files. > > That makes the build friendly to existing tools and avoids most of the > static linker work. I guess in that case your distributed build system would have a constraint that it always ships all the object files back to the primary machine (where you'd be running the debugger)? (perhaps it just always runs the link locally - even though it distributes the compilations - I guess that's probably how things like distcc work, where they only inject themselves into the compilation command, not the linking command maybe?) Also, may require some work/more flags to handle the possible file renaming (or relative/absolute adjustment) when object files are built on a remote system in one location, but then moved back to the local system and placed in another location? https://reviews.llvm.org/D52296 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
