* GCC's thin lto PLEASE
@ 2024-03-25 2:17 sotrdg sotrdg
2024-03-25 7:01 ` NightStrike
2024-03-25 8:17 ` Jonathan Wakely
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: sotrdg sotrdg @ 2024-03-25 2:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 207 bytes --]
gosh. GCC compiles so slow compared to clang with thin lto for C++, since the translation unit tends to be big, without thin lto, it is extremely hard to even get code compile nowadays due to its slowness.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC's thin lto PLEASE
2024-03-25 2:17 GCC's thin lto PLEASE sotrdg sotrdg
@ 2024-03-25 7:01 ` NightStrike
2024-03-25 12:14 ` sotrdg sotrdg
2024-03-25 8:17 ` Jonathan Wakely
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: NightStrike @ 2024-03-25 7:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sotrdg sotrdg; +Cc: gcc-help
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 537 bytes --]
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024, 22:18 sotrdg sotrdg via Gcc-help <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
wrote:
> gosh. GCC compiles so slow compared to clang with thin lto for C++, since
> the translation unit tends to be big, without thin lto, it is extremely
> hard to even get code compile nowadays due to its slowness.
>
Did you try the option "-fno-fat-lto-objects" ?
Also, to get significant speedup, use -flto=auto. That will run parallel
jobs.
Read https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html for more fun.
The LTO section is extensive.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* RE: GCC's thin lto PLEASE
2024-03-25 7:01 ` NightStrike
@ 2024-03-25 12:14 ` sotrdg sotrdg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: sotrdg sotrdg @ 2024-03-25 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: NightStrike; +Cc: gcc-help
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 955 bytes --]
Try to build it with llvm/clang. It would be ridiculously slow + oom.
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows
________________________________
From: NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 3:01:00 AM
To: sotrdg sotrdg <euloanty@live.com>
Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: GCC's thin lto PLEASE
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024, 22:18 sotrdg sotrdg via Gcc-help <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org<mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>> wrote:
gosh. GCC compiles so slow compared to clang with thin lto for C++, since the translation unit tends to be big, without thin lto, it is extremely hard to even get code compile nowadays due to its slowness.
Did you try the option "-fno-fat-lto-objects" ?
Also, to get significant speedup, use -flto=auto. That will run parallel jobs.
Read https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html for more fun. The LTO section is extensive.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC's thin lto PLEASE
2024-03-25 2:17 GCC's thin lto PLEASE sotrdg sotrdg
2024-03-25 7:01 ` NightStrike
@ 2024-03-25 8:17 ` Jonathan Wakely
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2024-03-25 8:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sotrdg sotrdg; +Cc: gcc-help
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 223 bytes --]
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024, 02:19 sotrdg sotrdg via Gcc-help, <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
wrote:
> it is extremely hard to even get code compile nowadays due to its slowness.
>
Isn't the solution to slowness just ... waiting longer?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-03-25 12:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-03-25 2:17 GCC's thin lto PLEASE sotrdg sotrdg
2024-03-25 7:01 ` NightStrike
2024-03-25 12:14 ` sotrdg sotrdg
2024-03-25 8:17 ` Jonathan Wakely
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).