On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:57:14AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >> Personally, I think 2 stage linking is one way to fix this issue. > > Ian has stated that he thinks this is a really bad idea. I haven't > approved the patch because I value Ian's opinion, and can see why he > thinks it is the wrong way to go. On the other hand, BFD is full of > bad ideas.. I'm not strongly opposed to your patch myself. > > HJ, you showed that link times for gcc did not regress too much with > your 2 stage lto link patch. It would be more interesting to see the > results for a large C++ project, mozilla for example. >
I don't have such programs at hand. Will timings from gccgo, which is written in C++, help? -- H.J.
