On 1/2/21 10:39 AM, Ian McInerney wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 5:33 PM Jeff Law <law@xxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:law@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > On 12/30/20 3:48 PM, Ian McInerney wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 7:54 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > <mailto:bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LTOBuildImprovements > <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LTOBuildImprovements> > > <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LTOBuildImprovements > <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LTOBuildImprovements>> > > > > > > == Summary == > > Currently all packages that are not opted out of LTO include > > -ffat-lto-objects in their build flags. This proposal would > remove > > -ffat-lto-objects from the default LTO flags and only use it for > > packages that actually need it. > > > > == Owner == > > * Name: [[User:law | Jeff Law]] > > * Email: law@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:law@xxxxxxxxxx> > <mailto:law@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:law@xxxxxxxxxx>> > > > > > > == Detailed Description == > > -ffat-lto-objects was added to the default LTO flags to > ensure that > > any installed .o/.a files included actual compiled code > rather than > > just LTO bytecodes (which are stripped after the install phase). > > However, that is wasteful from a compile-time standpoint as few > > packages actually install any .o/.a files. > > > > This proposal would remove -ffat-lto-objects from the > default LTO > > flags and packages that actually need the option would have > to opt-in > > via an RPM macro in their .spec file. This should significantly > > improve build times for most packages in Fedora. > > > > > > Does this mean that packages that are explicitly shipping a static > > library to the end user need to enable this macro to allow the > > installed static library to be usable by an end-user's compiler? If > > this is the case, then the packaging guidelines should be updated to > > reflect this. > Yes and the change request reflects that an update to the packaging > guidelines is necessary. > > > The proposal only says the macro will be documented, but doesn't go > into any more detail. I think it would be beneficial if the proposal > mentioned the macro would become required for static library packages > and that policy needs to be added - since that is adding a new MUST > section to the packaging guidelines. ACK. I'll add some additional text to the proposal. jeff _______________________________________________ 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
