On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 20:52, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew is correct that the reason for putting both lto and final code in > the same file was to do the least damage to peoples build tools. A > change from each invocation of gcc produce two files instead of one will > severely break many people's build environments. Mark and I were very > concerned about how widely used LTO would be, if trying it cost more > than adding -flto in several places. OK, we can then offer the option of emitting hybrid objects for libraries that want to provide the duality. For the final user, the distinction will be transparent. However, for the most common use scenario, emitting hybrid files is really wasteful. > However, in practice this is likely to be harder. Yes, agreed. Diego.
