Dnia 2014-04-22, o godz. 08:45:31 Martin Vaeth <mar...@mvath.de> napisał(a):
> On the other hand, if upstream tests and supports LTO, it should > be communicated to the user somehow that this is the case. > The same dilemma applies to some other CFLAGS which should not be > used in general but only if the code is written for them. Why do you believe that LTO 'should not be used in general'? As far as I understand, the LTO concept is suited well for most programs, though the results can vary. I agree that in the early stage many packages may be unhappy about it but as far as I understand, once it is more widespread only a few corner cases would be unsuited for LTO (+ the usual limitations like memory). That being the case, I'd feel it be more correct for LTO to disabled by default and enabled via CFLAGS+LDFLAGS, with packages not supporting LTO using flag-o-matic to filter them out. Although I should note that my understanding of LTO is pretty much limited to clang's angle. I don't know if gcc doesn't behave different. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
