Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 24 Apr 2022 23:21:56 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        python@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 263353] lang/python3*: Fails to link with LTO: Python includes unconditionally adds -g to --with-lto
Message-ID:  <bug-263353-21822-4JvXtv5iPk@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-263353-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-263353-21822@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=3D263353

Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|needs-patch                 |

--- Comment #6 from Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org> ---
koobs@,=20

we cannot work like that and leave ports regressed and non-building just
because someone wants to have the perfect fix, possibly sitting the fix out
until the cows come home (*)

I don't buy your PGO consideration: What piece of the code would enable PGO
anyways? The configure stage suggests to --enable-optimizations (which we do
not do) to enable PGO, "make configure" is sufficient to see that. We don't=
 see
the regression that prompted the upstream change, and given the nature of t=
he
latter, I contend that it's trying to downstream (as in Python) fix compiler
bugs.  And now you're talking to me about unfitting patches.

I fail to see what benefit -ftlto=3Dthin would bring, because it does not t=
ake
any of your objectsion away; but feel free to run it and see how far it red=
uces
size of the wkrdir and peak linker memory use, and if it really achieves the
same goals, commit before maintainer timeout. I am not wasting more time.

(*) I do not care about minimal deviation from upstream on a life support
branch (which is what Python 3.7 and 3.8 are, security fix only).

The build regression is real, and the easy fix would have been to just reve=
rt
the offending commit and possibly bump PORTEPOCH, which I haven't done alth=
ough
I could perfectly have invoked the "fix broken build" blanket just as well.

We can always refine fixes later, but barring a better solution in due time
(end April), we need a solution and we need to get the short-term fix in pl=
ace
and get it out of the (time-)critical path.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
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-263353-21822-4JvXtv5iPk>