[v2,12/18] kbuild: add support for clang LTO

Nicholas Piggin npiggin at gmail.com
Mon Nov 20 17:01:52 PST 2017


On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:21:52 -0800
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen at google.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 01:21:39PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > Do you have any kind of numbers for this, out of curiosity? Binary
> > size, performance, build time?  
> 
> I don't have performance numbers to share. Are there any specific
> benchmarks you'd be interested in seeing? Build time typically
> increases with LTO and in my experience, binary size tends to increase
> by ~10-15% as well.

By deduction, then you must see some performance improvement? :) 

I just wonder are you doing this because there is some worthwhile
performance gain? Or to enable more testing and development of LTO?
Any clues for why a user would want to enable it.

> 
> > Why is this needed? It would have been nice to get rid of the
> > !THIN_ARCHIVES option if you can make the patches work with the thin
> > archives paths.  
> 
> I believe LLVMgold doesn't know how to deal with an archive of LLVM IR
> files, but I can certainly use thin archives as an index and extract
> the path names for linking. I'll look into it.

Thanks, if you could. Possibly file a request with LLVMgold too, it
seems to be that toolchain support for archives is quite strong, so it
will be good to keep pushing for that.

Thanks,
Nick



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list