RetroSearch Browse

Tue Aug 8 23:36:28 EDT 2017 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-August/148806.html

On 8 August 2017 at 10:12, Gregory P. Smith <greg at krypto.org> wrote:
> I don't know whether it is beneficial or not - but having the capability to
> build LTO without PGO seems reasonable. I can review any pull requests
> altering configure.ac and Makefile.pre.in to make such a change.

Being able to separate them seems useful even if it's just from the
performance research perspective of comparing "PGO only", "LTO only"
and "PGO+LTO".

The LTO only numbers may be of questionable relevance to us as CPython
developers, but I can definitely see them being of interest to the
folks working on C compiler toolchains.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-August/148806.html below:

[Python-Dev] first post introduction and question regarding lto