On 2013.11.19 at 11:54 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 19/11/2013 11:05, Markus Trippelsdorf ha scritto: > > On 2013.11.19 at 09:44 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> Il 18/11/2013 20:09, Jan Hubicka ha scritto: > >>>>>>> this patch switches the default for fat-lto-objects as was documented > >>>>>>> for a while. > >>>>>>> -ffat-lto-objects doubles compilation time and often makes users to > >>>>>>> not notice that > >>>>>>> LTO was not used at all (because they forgot to use gcc-ar/gcc-nm > >>>>>>> plugins). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sadly I had to add -ffat-lto-objects to bootstrap. This is because I > >>>>>>> do not know > >>>>>>> how to convince our build machinery to use gcc-ar/gcc-nm during the > >>>>>>> stage2+ > >>>>> > >>>>> I've posted a minimal patch set for slim-lto-bootstrap last year, see: > >>>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/270842 > >>>>> > >>>>> If there's interest I could repost it. > >>> It would be really nice to have it in indeed. I think we do not really > >>> need > >>> lto-bootstrap.mk and slim-lto-bootstrap.mk, but otherwise the patch seems > >>> easy > >>> enough and would save quite some of lto bootstrap testing time... > >> > >> Patches 1 and 2 should go upstream first. > > > > OK, but where is upstream? > > Please note that a general libtool update would fix this issue, too. > > Ah, so they're already upstream. > > > So, maybe it is just time to upgrade libtool everywhere in gnu-land? > > Yes, that would be better but no need to do that now.
So would Patches 1 and 2 be OK in the interim? -- Markus
