On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 05:46:44PM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote: > Sure, this looks good to me, I'll use this in v8. The only minor > concern I have is that ThinLTO cannot be set as the default LTO mode, > but I assume anyone who selects LTO is also capable of deciding which > mode is better for them. It could be re-arranged similar to what you had before, but like: config LTO bool "..." depends on HAS_LTO help ... choice prompt "LTO mode" if LTO default LTO_GCC if HAS_LTO_GCC default LTO_CLANG_THIN if HAS_LTO_CLANG default LTO_CLANG_FULL help ... config LTO_CLANG_THIN ... config LTO_CLANG_FULL endchoice Then the LTO is top-level yes/no, but depends on detected capabilities, and the mode is visible if LTO is chosen, etc. I'm not really sure which is better... > > +config LTO_CLANG_THIN > > + bool "Clang ThinLTO (EXPERIMENTAL)" > > + depends on ARCH_SUPPORTS_LTO_CLANG_THIN > > + select LTO_CLANG > > + help > > + This option enables Clang's ThinLTO, which allows for parallel > > + optimization and faster incremental compiles compared to the > > + CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_FULL option. More information can be found > > + from Clang's documentation: > > + > > + https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ThinLTO.html > > + > > + If unsure, say Y. > > endchoice > > The two LTO_CLANG_* options need to depend on HAS_LTO_CLANG, of course. Whoops, yes. Thanks for catching that. :) -- Kees Cook
