Re: enabling LTO by default is vastly inappropriate
Adam Borowski dixit:
>> These bugs are subtile miscompilations. In mksh, only one test
>> by accident fails due to the GCC LTO bug. It’s definitely *not*
>
>What was the last version of gcc that you have tested?
8, 9 and then-snapshot, i.e. 10 prereleases. So, pretty recent.
>> (As for dietlibc, it’s inappropriate there anyway, so it opts out.)
>
>That's a shame, as it's specifically a library that could use reduced size
>due to the compiler being able to notice and excise unnecessary bits.
Right, but it’s full of tricks and not ready for this upstream either.
>A glance at the failure log shows that first we have an obvious bug that
>has been uncovered now:
>
>extern int main(int argc,char* argv[],char* envp[]);
>vs
>int main(int argc,char *argv[])
Yah. Both are valid, just not at the same time, I suppose.
>then some linker games.
As I said, full of tricks. This is beyond packager scope.
I’d rather suggest this for musl, which also supports static
linking well¹ and is much more standards-compliant (which
klibc also isn’t so it’s not an ideal target).
① though static-PIE seems broken in Debian’s musl even though
upstream’s webpages suggest it should work…
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Solange man keine schmutzigen Tricks macht, und ich meine *wirklich*
schmutzige Tricks, wie bei einer doppelt verketteten Liste beide
Pointer XORen und in nur einem Word speichern, funktioniert Boehm ganz
hervorragend. -- Andreas Bogk über boehm-gc in d.a.s.r
Reply to: