Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 23:23:06 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 264949] lang/gcc11: Needs build time warning for /tmp consumption Message-ID: <bug-264949-29464-hFxSslxu8r@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-264949-29464@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-264949-29464@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=3D264949 Lorenzo Salvadore <salvadore@freebsd.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugs.freebsd.org/bu | |gzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D2= 619 | |77 --- Comment #11 from Lorenzo Salvadore <salvadore@freebsd.org> --- (In reply to Tomoaki AOKI from comment #0) > Is this because of LTO_BOOTSTRAP option (default of amd64)? I think you might be right about it. Have you tried compiling the port with STANDARD_BOOTSTRAP instead? What about without any bootstrap option? See also bug #261977, which contains a reference to commit https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?id=3Daadf6428cc480fbeda72ec90d53ef34= 0e95f49ca that recently introduced LTO_BOOTSTRAP as default. (In reply to Piotr Kubaj from comment #2) If the issue is indeed LTO, we could add a warning as you suggested. I thin= k it would be nice to introduce it as a pkg-help file, which is displayed when choosing options and should explain that, if the machine is not powerful enough, the default option should be changed to disable LTO_BOOTSTRAP. On the other hand, we could also change the default options, as you already= did in some architectures. We would lose the optimiziation in prebuilt packages, but I don't know how much is it worth it: I think we are risking that many people that compile their ports with poudriere without modifying port optio= ns would get into trouble... Is the performance improvement using LTO really significant? If not, I would renounce to it for the sake of convenience. Another possibility could be to have separate ports or flavors: one without= LTO and one with LTO, but maintaining all the versions of GCC that we already h= ave seems complex enough, I don't think it is wise to increase complexity. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-264949-29464-hFxSslxu8r>