On 16/6/2022 8:41 am, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:29 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org > <mailto: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.
Is that a catch-22? We will not know until we enable it? :) > > 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. I do not know. It should help with C++ applications. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
