On 7/17/19 8:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 7/17/19 11:29 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: >> Romain Geissler <romain.geiss...@amadeus.com> writes: >>> >>> I have no idea of the LTO format and if indeed it can easily be updated >>> in a backward compatible way. But I would say it would be nice if it >>> could, and would allow adoption for projects spread on many teams >>> depending on each others and unable to re-build everything at each >>> toolchain update. >> >> Right now any change to an compiler option breaks the LTO format >> in subtle ways. In fact even the minor changes that are currently >> done are not frequent enough to catch all such cases. >> >> So it's unlikely to really work. > Right and stable LTO bytecode really isn't on the radar at this time. > > IMHO it's more important right now to start pushing LTO into the > mainstream for the binaries shipped by the vendors (and stripping the > LTO bits out of any static libraries/.o's shipped by the vendors). > > > SuSE's announcement today is quite ironic.
Why and what is ironic about it? > Red Hat's toolchain team is > planning to propose switching to LTO by default for Fedora 32 and were > working through various details yesterday. Great! > Our proposal will almost > certainly include stripping out the LTO bits from .o's and any static > libraries. Yes, we do it as well for now. Martin > > Jeff >
