Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:42:59 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 261977] lang/gcc12-devel: enable LTO Message-ID: <bug-261977-29464-H7IFYWdYWn@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 #32 from Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org> --- I do not object to LTO per se (in fact I have declined requests in the past= to build graphics/rawtherapee without OMP and other features and with old base compilers), but I am complaining that we really need to keep the ports tree manageable for the average contributor who doesn't have this 200+-thread EP= YC or XEON server with 1 TB of RAM to "poudriere testport" their builds quickl= y. For a home computer, my 4 y.o. Ryzen machine is still somewhat beefy but the very frequent rebuilding rust, gcc, whatnot just to test one of my port is really pulling on my nerves. So again my provocation, if we don't want ports maintainers, then we contin= ue=20 down that road named "who cares for build times if the high-performance clu= ster can build all ports in under 4 days". I am assuming that some derivative of gcc12-devel might be our default ports compiler some day. --=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-H7IFYWdYWn>