Using "mold" for lto instead of gcc "gold" #87
Labels
No Label
blocked upstream
bug
build-failure
duplicate
enhancement
help wanted
informational
invalid
invalid/corrupt package
packaging issue
priority: high
question
support
wontfix
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: ALHP/ALHP.GO#87
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
So the new linker called mold as now it second stable release.
So why replacing gcc
gold
for the new linkermod
?It faster, and a lots, it could reduce the time of compile time by half of more.
No LTO support makes this incompatible with our use-case for now.
If LTO is added at some point, there is a good chance Arch is going to switch as well. We can reevaluate it at that point again.
[ Suggestion ] Using "mold" for lto instead of gcc "gold"to Using "mold" for lto instead of gcc "gold"mold 1.1 now natively supports LTO: https://github.com/rui314/mold/releases/tag/v1.1
Good news.
Reading
does not sound promising for using mold with LTO builds.
Maybe it's still worth for non-lto builds.
For reference: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/devtools/-/merge_requests/127