Re: Packaging of static libraries
On 2016-04-12 14:52:33 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.
This is not specific to LTO at all. Other form of optimization can
yield "non-working" code (not expected by the developers). Note that
by default, shared libraries would still be used, so that this would
affect only users with specific applications, who would want to
optimize as much as possible. And code should also be tested with an
UB sanitizer (which could possibly enabled by default in cases where
it is shown that it does not slow things down[*]); this would allow
one to detect most UB related bugs.
[*] For instance, I use a patched Mutt built with the UB sanitizer,
as I could not see time differences, even on slow operations.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
Reply to: