On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 01:08:30PM +0800, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-dev wrote: > On 2019-07-09 23:11 +0100, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > > > Also, I had hoped to examine LTO (and I might take a stab at the > > first part of that - my previous attempt at recompiling gcc > > was a disaster in its testsuite, but maybe that was because I had > > not understood the problem of using -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 on gcc at > > that point). However, the big gains touted for LTO (smaller > > programs) come at a compile time cost - for those of us who > > frequently rebuild I'm not at all sure that the cost will be > > worthwhile. > > I only build GCC with LTO using --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto. There are > annoying problems with LTO and shared objects with ".symver" directive so I > never use LTO for other packages. > > You may want to consult https://github.com/InBetweenNames/gentooLTO .
Thanks, I've not seen that config option, nor references to the problems with .symver. More things for me to read about. The gentooLTO site was one of the places I started looking at before I decided to try any of this, but at least I went into it with my eyes wide open about never getting the time back. On the bright side (for me), by doing this I don't have time to test Linus's kernels. Congratulations on your testing! ĸen -- This is magic for grown-ups; it has to be hard because we know there's no such thing as a free goblin. -- Pratchett, Stewart & Cohen - The Science of Discworld II -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
