Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:57:24 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 261977] lang/gcc12-devel: enable LTO Message-ID: <bug-261977-29464-RFH09x4voN@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 #28 from Mark Millard <marklmi26-fbsd@yahoo.com> --- (In reply to Brooks Davis from comment #21) FYI (30,000+ bulk -a examples, default and quarterly): http://beefy16.nyi.freebsd.org/build.html?mastername=3D130amd64-default&bui= ld=3Dcb1788291f45 http://beefy14.nyi.freebsd.org/build.html?mastername=3D130amd64-quarterly&b= uild=3D04bac8927e5b where: 75:34:51 and 75:19:28, both gcc1[12]-devels LTO style vs. http://beefy16.nyi.freebsd.org/build.html?mastername=3D130amd64-default&bui= ld=3Dd79790970038 http://beefy14.nyi.freebsd.org/build.html?mastername=3D130amd64-quarterly&b= uild=3De082dc0ec3cc where: 70:11:06 and 68:32:09 (Feb, before LTO style) So, for the way the FreeBSD build servers are used (deliberate slack capacity), the overall change that I can reference (-devel's, not gcc1 as well) did not make a great difference in overall time but did increase it. (This does not cover what a gcc11 default with gcc11 built LTO style would be like. More would likely wait for the LTO build to finish.) --=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-RFH09x4voN>