Re: And in 2019? Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?

I wrote: >in GCC 6 IIRC and *still* pertinent in GCC 8 and I believe 9, Still present in (sid/amd64): • gcc-8 (= 8.3.0-19) • gcc-9 (= 9.1.0-10) • gcc-snapshot (= 1:20190719-1) >>I'm currently compiling e2fsprogs with LTO for Debian --- and I'm >>seriously considering ditching that change. The

Re: And in 2019? Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?

>We just had SuSE embracing LTO Not entirely. With my DD hat doffed and wearing the mksh upstream developer hat, I’ve been asking the package maintainers of mksh in all distributions to remove the LTO flags, and will remove the built-in support for using LTO in the next release. Why? mksh’s

Re: And in 2019? Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 06:03:21PM +0200, Steffen Möller wrote: > Hello, > > We just had SuSE embracing LTO > (https://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/opensuse-enables-lto-by-default-for-tumbleweed-smaller-faster-binaries.html). > I am not sure about the progress on issues summarised in >

And in 2019? Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?

Steffen Möller writes ("And in 2019? Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?"): > We just had SuSE embracing LTO > (https://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/opensuse-enables-lto-by-default-for-tumbleweed-smaller-faster-binaries.html). > I am not sure about the

And in 2019? Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?

Hello, We just had SuSE embracing LTO (https://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/opensuse-enables-lto-by-default-for-tumbleweed-smaller-faster-binaries.html). I am not sure about the progress on issues summarised in http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1180 that Ian pointed to. But since I last asked

Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?

Steffen Möller writes ("-flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?"): > I admit to be a fan of link time optimisation and would like to see this > challenge promoted towards more of a routine challenge to establish for > our packages. I found this informative thread >

Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?

Hallo, * Konstantin Demin [Wed, Mar 30 2016, 09:14:20AM]: > 1. LTO object format is not stable and ABI-persistent: e.g., LTO > objects compiled with gcc 5.2 may not work when using gcc 5.3 > (versions are just for example). Ref: gcc doc. > 2. Slim LTO objects are usable only with GCC of same

Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?

1. LTO object format is not stable and ABI-persistent: e.g., LTO objects compiled with gcc 5.2 may not work when using gcc 5.3 (versions are just for example). Ref: gcc doc. 2. Slim LTO objects are usable only with GCC of same version (see above). To provide wider support, you'll need to ship fat

Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:27:20PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Steffen Möller , 2016-03-29, 16:27: > >I admit to be a fan of link time optimisation and would like to see this > >challenge promoted towards more of a routine challenge to establish for > >our packages. > >

Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?

* Steffen Möller , 2016-03-29, 16:27: I admit to be a fan of link time optimisation and would like to see this challenge promoted towards more of a routine challenge to establish for our packages. gcc-5 manpage says: "Link-time optimization does not work well with

Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 09:02:13AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Steffen Möller wrote: > > I admit to be a fan of link time optimisation and would like to see this > > challenge promoted towards more of a routine challenge to establish for > > our packages. I found this informative thread > > > >

Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?

Steffen Möller wrote: > I admit to be a fan of link time optimisation and would like to see this > challenge promoted towards more of a routine challenge to establish for > our packages. I found this informative thread > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/06/msg00181.html > > that in

Re: -flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?

On Mar 29, Steffen Möller wrote: > Spending most of my Debian time with scientific packages, I see a gain > of speed on those routines as particularly rewarding. And this may also > be a feature that would attract many to our platform as an extra > advantage over the

-flto to become more of a routine - any change in opinion since 2011?

Hello, I admit to be a fan of link time optimisation and would like to see this challenge promoted towards more of a routine challenge to establish for our packages. I found this informative thread https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2011/06/msg00181.html that in particular sees the challenge