On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:29 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote:
> On 15/6/2022 10:58 pm, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > What's the problem with enabling LTO support in the tools by default? > > None that I know of and this patch enables the support by default. The RSB > incorrectly supported the configure `--enable-lto` option. That option > controls > the host build and when enabled the built host executables are built with > LTO. > > For RTEMS building LTO support is via the languages option, ie it is > treated as > a language. This patch provides that support and enables it. > I'm happy with that. If it is going to cause a problem building the tools, it would be better to know it and then disable it for an architecture until that's resolved. > > > Using it is a different matter. > > Yes. I comments were an attempt to highlight this. I would like to see LTO > support available but it is not something all users will use. > > FYI Xilinx use to build the Microblaze firmware for the PMC/PMS cores in > the Versal. > Interesting. I wonder if we have any examples that would show a real benefit from it. I think it would take a real application to see an advantage. --joel > Chris >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
