On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 06:59:02 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> A previous argument against link time optimization support that we have for
>> gcc is that it was extremely slow. After some checks it turns out we are
>> passing rather inefficient flags to gcc in optimized builds. Changing these
>> fla
On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 06:59:02 GMT, Julian Waters wrote:
>> A previous argument against link time optimization support that we have for
>> gcc is that it was extremely slow. After some checks it turns out we are
>> passing rather inefficient flags to gcc in optimized builds. Changing these
>> fla
> A previous argument against link time optimization support that we have for
> gcc is that it was extremely slow. After some checks it turns out we are
> passing rather inefficient flags to gcc in optimized builds. Changing these
> flags to run the linker optimizations in parallel and passing a
