Re: [v4.1 2/2] CI, pytest: Add a test for sandbox without LTO

Simon Glass
2023-10-24T21:40:11Z

Hi Tom,

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 11:07, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 11:02:06AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 at 10:28, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 10:13:52AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > > BTW buildman supports -L which disabled LTO using the NO_LTO=1 option
> > >
> > > I worry about putting sandbox-specific flags in buildman. Outside of
> > > sandbox, targets that enable LTO require LTO, just like any other CONFIG
> > > option.
> >
> > Some problems with LTO and why I don't normally develop with it enabled:
> >
> > - build time
> > - code moves around all over the place so it is hard to compare size growth
> >
> > At least for my IDE flow, I use -L in most cases. Yes there are some
> > boards which won't fit without LTO, but I don't see them much.
> >
> > So this is mostly a dev convenience / productivity tool.
>
> Yes, it does take longer to link. And yes, a more complex optimization
> does make some size tracking harder to understand (since growth or
> shrinkage allows for different optimizations to be made around it). But
> everything in configs/ that enables LTO needs LTO.

I thought we were planning to enable it for all of ARM, though?
Clearly most of those boards don't *need* it.

Regards,
Simon