On 12/08/2010 01:19 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> To be honest I don't really see the point of all this complexity you
> guys are proposing just to save fat LTO. Fat LTO is always a bad idea
> because it's slow and does lots of redundant work. If LTO is to become
> a more wide spread mode it has to go simply because of the poor
> performance.
>
As someone who encountered slim LTO on Unix 17 years ago (on MIPS) I can
promise you that unless fat LTO is supported, there will never be a
successful transition. The amount of work to deal with the make
environment every time simply made it not worth it.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
