From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SbgC9-000394-6b for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 22:56:17 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 55BF1E0B09; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 22:55:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A39E059B for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 22:54:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECF3B1B4025 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 22:54:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.188 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.179, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_RCVD_USER=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HAbNAKMjsVEO for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 22:54:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BB9C1B4022 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 22:54:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SbgA1-0001bu-Cs for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 00:54:05 +0200 Received: from athedsl-343735.home.otenet.gr ([85.72.198.85]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 00:54:05 +0200 Received: from realnc by athedsl-343735.home.otenet.gr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 00:54:05 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Nikos Chantziaras Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: GCC 4.7 and LTO: it works Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 01:53:19 +0300 Organization: Lucas Barks Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: athedsl-343735.home.otenet.gr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120603 Thunderbird/12.0.1 In-Reply-To: X-Archives-Salt: 039a0614-384e-426b-85ac-4d087c4089ff X-Archives-Hash: 3961048bd2617c04b711539bd6db4d02 On 05/06/12 01:37, Paul Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> >>> Did you use gold or the standard linker? >> >> >> The standard one. I didn't actually think about the importance of this. >> Does gold work better with LTO? > > I don't know much about it, but AFAIK gold is supposed to be several > times faster at linking in general, and when using it in combination > with gcc+LTO the compiler actually offloads some of the LTO processing > to the linker which is supposed to be more efficient. Sounds like it's worth trying, but one thing doesn't look good; Diego's blog is full of articles about Gold breakage: http://blog.flameeyes.eu/tag/gold