Re: Correct use of "-flto"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: John Frankish <j-frankish@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Correct use of "-flto"
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:01:56 +0000
Cc: "gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx" <gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <E1B828866A01174CB7A0393CF2309BCC3E35BCD0@NL0230MBX12N1.DIR.slb.com>

On 27 March 2013 04:00, John Frankish wrote:
> Otherwise I'm going to have to compile with LTO for apps/so libs and again without LTO for static libs...

Why?  If you do that you won't be able to optimize any code in the
static libs at link time.

References:
- Correct use of "-flto"
  - From: John Frankish
- Re: Correct use of "-flto"
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- RE: Correct use of "-flto"
  - From: John Frankish

Prev by Date: Re: acceptable versions of cloog?
Next by Date: Re: acceptable versions of cloog?
Previous by thread: RE: Correct use of "-flto"
Next by thread: Re: Re: Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux C Programming] [Linux Kernel] [eCos] [Fedora Development] [Fedora Announce] [Autoconf] [The DWARVES Debugging Tools] [Yosemite Campsites] [Yosemite News] [Linux GCC]

Powered by Linux