Re: LTO objects after build: Rebuilding vs erroring out

2021-11-17 Thread Florian Weimer
* Jakub Jelinek: > Or if we recorded all command line options we care about into LTO bytecode > (Optimization/Target options are recorded already on a per-function basis > but I'm worried about others), just have a gcc driver mode that turns > a non-fat LTO object into normal non-LTO object. I th

Re: LTO objects after build: Rebuilding vs erroring out

2021-11-16 Thread Kevin Kofler via devel
Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Or if we recorded all command line options we care about into LTO bytecode > (Optimization/Target options are recorded already on a per-function basis > but I'm worried about others), just have a gcc driver mode that turns > a non-fat LTO object into normal non-LTO object. T

Re: LTO objects after build: Rebuilding vs erroring out

2021-11-15 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 12:13:19PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > with somehting that errors out (fails the build) if any relocatable > > object files (.o) or static archives (.a) by default, and stop producing > > object code by default, only LTO representation. If a special > > redhat-rpm-config fla

Re: LTO objects after build: Rebuilding vs erroring out

2021-11-15 Thread Jeff Law
On 11/15/2021 6:06 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: In the future, we might want to switch GCC not to generate both object code and LTO representation during the build process. For most packages, dual generation is not necessary because no relocatable object files for static linking are included in t

Re: LTO objects after build: Rebuilding vs erroring out

2021-11-15 Thread Florian Weimer
* Tom Stellard: > On 11/15/21 05:06, Florian Weimer wrote: >> In the future, we might want to switch GCC not to generate both object >> code and LTO representation during the build process. For most >> packages, dual generation is not necessary because no relocatable object >> files for static li

Re: LTO objects after build: Rebuilding vs erroring out

2021-11-15 Thread Tom Stellard
On 11/15/21 05:06, Florian Weimer wrote: In the future, we might want to switch GCC not to generate both object code and LTO representation during the build process. For most packages, dual generation is not necessary because no relocatable object files for static linking are included in the RPM

LTO objects after build: Rebuilding vs erroring out

2021-11-15 Thread Florian Weimer
In the future, we might want to switch GCC not to generate both object code and LTO representation during the build process. For most packages, dual generation is not necessary because no relocatable object files for static linking are included in the RPM (neither as separate ET_REL .o files, nor