I have just received Bug#1015348 reporting that adns doesn't work with
LTO (link-time optimisation).
How does LTO work with ABI compatibility, which we rely on very
heavily ? Eg, my reading of the spec is as follows: if I add members
to an enum in a new library version, making a combined program
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 18:24:07 +0100
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Frannkly, I think enabling LTO by default is a mistake. The
> performance benefits are not likely to be worth the bugs silently
> introduced across our codebase.
Fedora, openSUSE, and Ubuntu did LTO by default, and I've not heard about
an
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 03:30:16PM +0200, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> Fedora, openSUSE, and Ubuntu did LTO by default, and I've not heard about
> any wrong. Is the situation in Debian differ from theirs?
Not everything works with LTO right away: debugging build problems or
runtime problems takes effo
Le sam. 23 juil. 2022 à 02:45, Seth Arnold a
écrit :
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 03:30:16PM +0200, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> > Fedora, openSUSE, and Ubuntu did LTO by default, and I've not heard
> about
> > any wrong. Is the situation in Debian differ from theirs?
>
> Not everything works with LTO r
On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 00:37:37 +
Seth Arnold wrote:
> Debian supports more architectures than Ubuntu or Fedora or OpenSUSE; this
> might mean there's costs unique to Debian.
How about applying it to only amd64 and arm64 first, then expanding
to other archs? It is an efficient way, IMO.
--
Hi Ian,
On 7/19/22 19:24, Ian Jackson wrote:
How does LTO work with ABI compatibility, which we rely on very
heavily ?
Symbols that are visible to the dynamic linker or that have their
address taken are hard borders for optimization, even in non-LTO builds.
For example,
int a() { retu
6 matches
Mail list logo
