On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 14:38 +0000, devel-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 15:23:57 +0100 > From: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy > Change > To: Development discussions related to Fedora > <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Vitaly Zaitsev <vitaly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <20200605142357.GQ15536@xxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 08:27:13AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 8:26 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:47 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > > > <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 05.06.2020 09:52, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > > > I am opposed to this change. Chromium and Firefox build fine with GCC. > > > > > I > > > > > think that a distribution should be built with a consistent toolchain > > > > > wherever possible. > > > > > > > > Clang is much better than GCC nowadays. It has better architecture, > > > > support lots of optimizations and analyzers. > > > > > > > > GCC is a legacy compiler. It should be completely replaced by Clang in > > > > the nearest future. > > > > > > > > > > Having worked in a distribution that uses Clang by default > > > (OpenMandriva), I can say that this is *not true*. Switching from GCC > > > to Clang cost OpenMandriva a lot of performance. It also cost them a lot of > > > security hardening at the compiler level. GCC-built binaries are still > > > better, and remain better as long as people are continually using and > > > developing for it. > > > > > > This change appears to largely be driven by the maintainers of web > > > browser packages that upstream have no GCC validation and it has to be > > > done in Fedora downstream. I know Chromium is a lost cause (Google > > > couldn't possibly care any less than they do now, especially since > > > they don't even care about Python 2 being EOL), but has anyone talked > > > to Mozilla about introducing GCC-based CI for Firefox code? I assume > > > they have a CI infrastructure that's relatively pluggable. > > > > > > Note that having stuff mix compilers is also a bad idea because LTO is > > > compatible across the two compilers. If you want to use LTO, you need > > > to use the same compiler across the chain, or stuff will break. > > > > > > > Yay thinkos... I mean that LTO is *not* compatible across the two compilers. > > Does this change conflict with: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LTOByDefault Not it does not. The LTO bytecode streams do not survive past any given package build. ie, they are used within the build, then discarded. They're not supposed to show up in any installed libraries. Thus the fact that the two compilers use totally different LTO representations (and always will) is a non-issue here. Jeff ps. THe reason we discard the LTO data is because both compilers consider the LTO bytecodes unstable between major releases. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
