From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4A3E1FF146 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2026 16:06:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 82C1F2143B; Tue, 07 Jul 2026 16:06:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 16:05:57 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= Subject: Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager 2/3] ui: d/rules: use thin instead of fat LTO To: Dominik Csapak , pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260706114822.2751086-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20260706114822.2751086-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260706114822.2751086-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.17.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1783433095.x62omid41h.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783433152833 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.200 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: M6FYT66XAWMUFGW2HNKF2DLU3IDEYS5U X-Message-ID-Hash: M6FYT66XAWMUFGW2HNKF2DLU3IDEYS5U X-MailFrom: f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On July 6, 2026 1:44 pm, Dominik Csapak wrote: > fat LTO merges all LLVM modules into a single unit for optimizing. > Changing this to thin LTO increases the uncompressed binary size by 1.59 > MiB (+11%) (compressed +192KiB/+4.6%) but save us ~160s (-40%) of (wall) > build time during a 'make deb'. but what are the effects on runtime performance? the same question also applies to the next patch, a single codegen unit increases the amount of optimizations the compiler can do.. > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > ui/debian/rules | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >=20 > diff --git a/ui/debian/rules b/ui/debian/rules > index b3b3b078..8ffa868a 100755 > --- a/ui/debian/rules > +++ b/ui/debian/rules > @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ endif > =20 > $(CARGO) prepare-debian $(CURDIR)/debian/cargo_registry --link-from-sys= tem > sed -e 's/^debug =3D true$$/debug =3D false/g' debian/cargo_home/config= .toml > - echo "\nlto=3D\"fat\"" >> debian/cargo_home/config.toml > + echo "\nlto=3D\"thin\"" >> debian/cargo_home/config.toml > echo "\nopt-level=3D\"s\"" >> debian/cargo_home/config.toml > echo "\ncodegen-units=3D1" >> debian/cargo_home/config.toml > # patch cargo_home config to use lld with wasm, otherwise the build fai= ls > --=20 > 2.47.3 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20