On Fri, 2023 Mar 17 21:26-04:00, Andres Salomon wrote: > > Is Ubuntu looking to switch to using Debian's chromium instead of the > snap or flatpak or whatever they currently use?
Unfortunately no, not to my knowledge. I'm just working with a gentleman who maintains an Ubuntu PPA build of Chromium, that is based on Debian's source. > If that's a "yes", and you're the one working on it, I'd suggest > joining Debian's chromium team. :) That's what they should have done, all right... >> The attached patch addresses both issues. > > Thanks! I'll apply the patch (though I'm not sure yet if we want more > verbose linker output, build logs are already pretty big). Oh, I didn't add that bit; my patch just moves it down in the file. >> Side note: You may want to consider enabling ThinLTO, by setting >> use_thin_lto=true and unsetting concurrent_links. The final link >> requires only ~10.5 GB RAM, and completes within minutes. > > I'm not clear on how that affects runtime performance; any ideas? I'd > also have to make sure that it works okay on clang-13 (which is what > bullseye is building with). I haven't run any benchmarks myself, but commentary from folks who do performance-optimized builds of Chromium (https://thorium.rocks/ is one example) seem to indicate that ThinLTO is beneficial. (LTO generally is, isn't it? It's just that with Chromium, standard LTO is prohibitively expensive.) I tried a test build on bullseye with use_thin_lto=true, and it goes through, FWIW. I don't have at this time an environment to actually try out the build, however. --Daniel -- Daniel Richard G. || sk...@iskunk.org My ASCII-art .sig got a bad case of Times New Roman.
