Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 28 Mar 2022 11:11:44 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        toolchain@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 261977] lang/gcc12-devel: enable LTO
Message-ID:  <bug-261977-29464-j1dFwglUUR@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-261977-29464@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-261977-29464@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D261977

--- Comment #14 from Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> ---
LTO is a trade-off, where you sacrifice more memory and CPU at link time for
possibly faster and/or smaller final binaries. That it eats more resources =
is
almost guaranteed, but slightly "better" binaries may not be worth the cost=
...

(Side note: one annoying aspect is that because it can be so time consuming,
these heavy link jobs tend to cluster up, if you do a multi-jobbed build,
either via poudriere or some other build system. Which then means that you =
have
a bunch of huge linking processes running in parallel, eating up even more
resources!)

That said, I would say the safe, conservative choice is to make use of LTO =
an
opt-in (either global, or per port), instead of an opt-out?

I mean, if you have a huge machine with plenty of CPU and RAM, then by all
means LTO the hell out of everything, but most people aren't that lucky (or
rich). :-)

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-261977-29464-j1dFwglUUR>