| 1 |
On 05/06/12 01:37, Paul Hartman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Nikos Chantziaras<realnc@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>>> Did you use gold or the standard linker? |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> The standard one. I didn't actually think about the importance of this. |
| 8 |
>> Does gold work better with LTO? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I don't know much about it, but AFAIK gold is supposed to be several |
| 11 |
> times faster at linking in general, and when using it in combination |
| 12 |
> with gcc+LTO the compiler actually offloads some of the LTO processing |
| 13 |
> to the linker which is supposed to be more efficient. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Sounds like it's worth trying, but one thing doesn't look good; Diego's |
| 16 |
blog is full of articles about Gold breakage: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/tag/gold |
Archives