On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:13:07AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Ah, if "this patch set" meant "adding LTO", I stand corrected and I > apologize for my confusion. Again, I'm not proposing for LTO to be enabled by default. These patches just make it possible to enable it. Are you saying the possibility that a future compiler update breaks something is a blocker even for experimental features? > I agree that we need LTO/PGO to be housebroken from an LKMM viewpoint > before it is enabled. Can you elaborate what's needed from clang before this can move forward? For example, if you have specific test cases in mind, we can always work on including them in the LLVM test suite. Sami -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
