krytarowski added a comment. On 03.01.2019 23:15, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 09:38:49PM +0000, Kamil Rytarowski via Phabricator via cfe-commits wrote: >> I think that this place is not the right place to bash GNU ld for performance issues. > > I didn't. > >> I will refer just to slides and paper from Ian Lance Taylor to get overview why it is unacceptably slow: >> >> https://www.airs.com/ian/gold-slides.pdf >> https://ai.google/research/pubs/pub34417.pdf > > We all know that gold and lld are faster. It's a huge step from > "somewhat faster" to "unacceptably slow". But that's again a completely > separate topic.
I used to waste like an hour daily average, any test-build of a local change and break of 5-10 min is `unacceptably slow`. >> I will add that (unless nothing changed recently) ignoring lack of >> features (like thinlto) GNU ld cannot produce >=4GB executables and >> this makes it even more unusable. > > That sounds seriously like a troll. I already mentioned DWARF fission > for the one reasonable case for > 100MB binaries and that's in short > "don't touch most of the data"... > I've edited the entry above that it's already more than 4GB of unoptimized webkit build with debuginfo, and gnu ld is truncating files on 4GB boundary. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56215/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56215 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
