Re: Packaging of static libraries

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Vincent Lefevre writes ("Re: Packaging of static libraries"):
> On 2016-04-10 14:28:02 +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> > (1) When performance matters. Here we need the static library to be
> > built without position independent code. This can still give several
> > percent gains depending on arch / programming language.
> 
> Yes, but in that case, the best thing to do is to recompile everything
> for the target processor (instead of generic x86_64, for instance),
> with LTO. For GMP+MPFR, I noticed a gain of up to 37% a few years ago.

I'm afraid that LTO is probably too dangerous to be used as a
substitute for static linking.  See my comments in the recent LTO
thread here, where I referred to the problem of undefined behaviour,
and pointed at John Regehr's blog.

Thanks,
Ian.