This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Enale -fno-fat-lto-objects by default
- From: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf dot de>
- To: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, dj at redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 12:19:05 +0100
- Subject: Re: Enale -fno-fat-lto-objects by default
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131118180458 dot GH11338 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <20131118184331 dot GA10148 at x4> <20131118190940 dot GA26530 at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <528B24D5 dot 4020504 at gnu dot org> <20131119100506 dot GB10148 at x4> <528B4369 dot 7070302 at gnu dot org>
On 2013.11.19 at 11:54 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 19/11/2013 11:05, Markus Trippelsdorf ha scritto:
> > On 2013.11.19 at 09:44 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 18/11/2013 20:09, Jan Hubicka ha scritto:
> >>>>>>> this patch switches the default for fat-lto-objects as was documented for a while.
> >>>>>>> -ffat-lto-objects doubles compilation time and often makes users to not notice that
> >>>>>>> LTO was not used at all (because they forgot to use gcc-ar/gcc-nm plugins).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sadly I had to add -ffat-lto-objects to bootstrap. This is because I do not know
> >>>>>>> how to convince our build machinery to use gcc-ar/gcc-nm during the stage2+
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've posted a minimal patch set for slim-lto-bootstrap last year, see:
> >>>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/270842
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If there's interest I could repost it.
> >>> It would be really nice to have it in indeed. I think we do not really need
> >>> lto-bootstrap.mk and slim-lto-bootstrap.mk, but otherwise the patch seems easy
> >>> enough and would save quite some of lto bootstrap testing time...
> >>
> >> Patches 1 and 2 should go upstream first.
> >
> > OK, but where is upstream?
> > Please note that a general libtool update would fix this issue, too.
>
> Ah, so they're already upstream.
>
> > So, maybe it is just time to upgrade libtool everywhere in gnu-land?
>
> Yes, that would be better but no need to do that now.
So would Patches 1 and 2 be OK in the interim?
--
Markus