Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 19:05:59 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 261977] lang/gcc12-devel: enable LTO Message-ID: <bug-261977-29464-msCzmIaNqg@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 #25 from Mark Millard <marklmi26-fbsd@yahoo.com> --- (In reply to Brooks Davis from comment #21) An interesting property of the criteria suggestion is: How much value is there for more frequent package update releases vs. less frequent package releases for the actual timescale difference involved from before any gcc LTO builds to now with 3 gcc LTO builds (gcc11, gcc11-devel, and gcc12-devel)? A quick set of data could be to look up some 30,000+ port bulk -a runs on amd64 and aarch64 (tier 1's) in the time frames and see if the total time is significantly different and by how much. A complication is the currently-frequent build failures for aarch64 building gcc12-devel for NOHANG_TIME and/or MAX_EXECUTION_TIME . One might have to search for a successful case to have a reasonable comparison (approximating "as if the timeouts were longer"). An incompleteness in the comparison could be the status of gcc1 being the default vs. not. Once default, more things will wait on its build. Exp-run like test of default gcc11? --=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-msCzmIaNqg>