On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 6:41 PM Andi Kleen via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 08:45:22AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 9:54 PM Eugene Rozenfeld via Gcc > > <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I've been the AutoFDO maintainer for the last 1.5 years. I've resurrected > > > autoprofiledbootstrap build and made a number of other fixes/improvements > > > (e.g., discriminator support). > > > > > > The tools for AutoFDO (create_gcov, etc.) currently live in > > > https://github.com/google/AutoFDO repo and GCC AutoFDO documentation > > > points users to that repo. That repo also has tools for LLVM AutoFDO. > > > https://github.com/google/AutoFDO has several submodules: > > > https://github.com/google/autofdo/blob/master/.gitmodules > > > > > > I got a message from Snehasish (cc'd) that google intends to migrate the > > > tools for LLVM to the LLVM repo and wants to archive > > > https://github.com/google/AutoFDO. That will be a problem for AutoFDO in > > > GCC. The idea to find a different home for GCC AutoFDO tools was > > > discussed before on this alias but this becomes more urgent now. One idea > > > was to build these tools from GCC repo and another was to produce gcov > > > from perf tool directly. Andi (cc'd) had some early unfinished prototype > > > for latter. > > > > > > Please let me know if you have thoughts on how we should proceed. > > > > I think it makes sense for GCC specific parts to live in the GCC > > repository alongside gcov tools. I do wonder how much common code > > there is > > between the LLVM and the GCC tooling though and whether it makes sense > > to keep it common (and working with both frontends)? The > > pragmatic solution would have been to fork the repo on github to a > > place not within the google group ... > > In tree would need convincing Google to assign the copyright.
Would it? Looks like it's under a free license (apache 2), not everything in the tree is copyright FSF or GPL3. Jason
