On 2016-04-12 14:52:33 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > I'm afraid that LTO is probably too dangerous to be used as a > substitute for static linking. See my comments in the recent LTO > thread here, where I referred to the problem of undefined behaviour, > and pointed at John Regehr's blog.
This is not specific to LTO at all. Other form of optimization can yield "non-working" code (not expected by the developers). Note that by default, shared libraries would still be used, so that this would affect only users with specific applications, who would want to optimize as much as possible. And code should also be tested with an UB sanitizer (which could possibly enabled by default in cases where it is shown that it does not slow things down[*]); this would allow one to detect most UB related bugs. [*] For instance, I use a patched Mutt built with the UB sanitizer, as I could not see time differences, even on slow operations. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
