Re: LTO and ABI compatibility

To: Seth Arnold <seth.arnold@canonical.com>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: LTO and ABI compatibility
From: Hideki Yamane <henrich@iijmio-mail.jp>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2022 22:10:36 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 20220723221036.416f5bf5cfe56436b99da19c@iijmio-mail.jp>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20220723003737.GA1138560@millbarge>
References: <[🔎] 25302.59575.811145.748172@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <[🔎] 20220722153016.4897300c0c882c28e67c33f7@iijmio-mail.jp> <[🔎] 20220723003737.GA1138560@millbarge>

On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 00:37:37 +0000
Seth Arnold <seth.arnold@canonical.com> wrote:
> Debian supports more architectures than Ubuntu or Fedora or OpenSUSE; this
> might mean there's costs unique to Debian.

 How about applying it to only amd64 and arm64 first, then expanding
 to other archs? It is an efficient way, IMO.

-- 
Hideki Yamane <henrich@iijmio-mail.jp>

Reply to:

References:
- LTO and ABI compatibility
  - From: Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
- Re: LTO and ABI compatibility
  - From: Hideki Yamane <henrich@iijmio-mail.jp>
- Re: LTO and ABI compatibility
  - From: Seth Arnold <seth.arnold@canonical.com>

Prev by Date: Bug#1015909: ITP: python3-pytest-datafiles -- pytest plugin to create a tmpdir containing a preconfigured set of files and/or directories.
Next by Date: Bug#1015926: ITP: persalys -- GUI for uncertainty treatment and variabilities management
Previous by thread: Re: LTO and ABI compatibility
Next by thread: Re: LTO and ABI compatibility
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread