From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97E531FF146 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2026 16:10:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3C5E22143B; Tue, 07 Jul 2026 16:10:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9afa3e56-d06b-4cfc-acf5-580a04c7ca81@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2026 16:10:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH datacenter-manager 2/3] ui: d/rules: use thin instead of fat LTO To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= , pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260706114822.2751086-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20260706114822.2751086-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <1783433095.x62omid41h.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <1783433095.x62omid41h.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783433416480 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.060 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: RZZYZPZX65JUXBPSLE6YGOBLAKKZW53T X-Message-ID-Hash: RZZYZPZX65JUXBPSLE6YGOBLAKKZW53T X-MailFrom: d.csapak@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 7/7/26 4:05 PM, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > 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.. true, i didn't measure that. I'll see that i can come up with some sensible gui benchmark to measure this and I'll report back with the numbers.. > >> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak >> --- >> ui/debian/rules | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> 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 >> >> $(CARGO) prepare-debian $(CURDIR)/debian/cargo_registry --link-from-system >> sed -e 's/^debug = true$$/debug = false/g' debian/cargo_home/config.toml >> - echo "\nlto=\"fat\"" >> debian/cargo_home/config.toml >> + echo "\nlto=\"thin\"" >> debian/cargo_home/config.toml >> echo "\nopt-level=\"s\"" >> debian/cargo_home/config.toml >> echo "\ncodegen-units=1" >> debian/cargo_home/config.toml >> # patch cargo_home config to use lld with wasm, otherwise the build fails >> -- >> 2.47.3 >> >> >> >> >> >>