On 7/22/19 4:31 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 7/22/19 8:25 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >> On 7/17/19 8:10 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 7/17/19 11:29 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: >>>> Romain Geissler <romain.geiss...@amadeus.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>> I have no idea of the LTO format and if indeed it can easily be updated >>>>> in a backward compatible way. But I would say it would be nice if it >>>>> could, and would allow adoption for projects spread on many teams >>>>> depending on each others and unable to re-build everything at each >>>>> toolchain update. >>>> >>>> Right now any change to an compiler option breaks the LTO format >>>> in subtle ways. In fact even the minor changes that are currently >>>> done are not frequent enough to catch all such cases. >>>> >>>> So it's unlikely to really work. >>> Right and stable LTO bytecode really isn't on the radar at this time. >>> >>> IMHO it's more important right now to start pushing LTO into the >>> mainstream for the binaries shipped by the vendors (and stripping the >>> LTO bits out of any static libraries/.o's shipped by the vendors). >>> >>> >>> SuSE's announcement today is quite ironic. >> >> Why and what is ironic about it? > Sorry, you'd have to have internal context -- we'd been discussing it > within the Red Hat team for Fedora 32 the previous day. One of the > questions that came up was whether or not any other major distributor > was shipping with LTO enabled :-)
According to what I know, OpenMandriva should be using LTO: https://www.openmandriva.org/en/news/article/openmandriva-lx-4-0-rc-released but the package building machinery is closed, so I can't confirm that. One another example is Gentoo: https://github.com/InBetweenNames/gentooLTO but it's up to users preferences. So that I consider openSUSE Tumbleweed as a first one :P Martin > > > Jeff >
