On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:21:52 -0800 Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 01:21:39PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > Do you have any kind of numbers for this, out of curiosity? Binary > > size, performance, build time? > > I don't have performance numbers to share. Are there any specific > benchmarks you'd be interested in seeing? Build time typically > increases with LTO and in my experience, binary size tends to increase > by ~10-15% as well. By deduction, then you must see some performance improvement? :) I just wonder are you doing this because there is some worthwhile performance gain? Or to enable more testing and development of LTO? Any clues for why a user would want to enable it. > > > Why is this needed? It would have been nice to get rid of the > > !THIN_ARCHIVES option if you can make the patches work with the thin > > archives paths. > > I believe LLVMgold doesn't know how to deal with an archive of LLVM IR > files, but I can certainly use thin archives as an index and extract > the path names for linking. I'll look into it. Thanks, if you could. Possibly file a request with LLVMgold too, it seems to be that toolchain support for archives is quite strong, so it will be good to keep pushing for that. Thanks, Nick -- 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
