This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Enale -fno-fat-lto-objects by default

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:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>> and, 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?


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]