(already Ok-ed off-list, since I forgot to Cc: )
On Thu, 2025-03-27 at 14:40:57 +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025, Michal Jires wrote:
> > + <li>Introduced incremental Link-Time Optimizations to significantly
> > reduce
> > + average recompilation time with small code changes while using LTO.
>
> How about rephrasing this to "Incremental Link-Time Optimizations
> significantly reduce average recompilation time with only small changes to
> generated code..."?
>
> Go ahead with this or variation if you agree with the general idea; if I
> misunderstood the intent, please push back and let me know. :-)
Thanks a lot, you probably misunderstood. The generated code should be
identical for identical source code with or without Incremental LTO,
which your phrasing seems to heavily imply is not the case (and mine
could be interpreted that way). I will have to make it clearer.
Maybe:
```
Incremental Link-Time Optimizations significantly reduce average
recompilation time of LTO when doing small code edits
(e.g. editing a single function).
```
explains it better?
Michal
>
> Gerald
---
htdocs/gcc-15/changes.html | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-15/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-15/changes.html
index dbc82be2..5c802a6b 100644
--- a/htdocs/gcc-15/changes.html
+++ b/htdocs/gcc-15/changes.html
@@ -59,6 +59,13 @@ a work-in-progress.</p>
system and user time. This reduces the overhead of the option
significantly,
making it possible to use in standard build systems.
</li>
+ <li>Incremental Link-Time Optimizations significantly reduce average
+ recompilation time of LTO when doing small code edits
+ (e.g. editing a single function).
+ Enable with <a
+
href="https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-flto-incremental";
+ ><code>-flto-incremental=</code></a>.
+ </li>
</ul>
--
2.48.1
