From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
	by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E5DA0679
	for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:39:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551C17CCA;
	Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:39:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (mail.lysator.liu.se [130.236.254.3])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5607CB0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:39:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F6AA40013
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:39:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix, from userid 1004)
 id EFF1140014; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:39:48 +0200 (CEST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on
 bernadotte.lysator.liu.se
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL
 autolearn=disabled version=3.4.1
X-Spam-Score: -0.9
Received: from [192.168.1.59] (host-90-232-38-87.mobileonline.telia.com
 [90.232.38.87])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7765140013
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:39:48 +0200 (CEST)
To: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_R=c3=b6nnblom?= <mattias.ronnblom@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <3d280f7e-057f-a35c-bd2f-db401e46e110@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:39:47 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: [dpdk-dev] DPDK and Link-time Optimizations
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Message-ID: <20190429163947.BBCbnUrDrNJMZBm1F309alj4-Qu0wz5ImYHlCd2UXjs@z>

Hi.

Did anyone on the list successfully build DPDK with GCC Link-time 
Optimizations (LTO) enabled? I tried and failed a while back, although 
the detailed reasons of my failure eludes me for the moment.

If LTO builds would work "out of the box", DPDK could gradually migrate 
from away from having static inline functions in the header files.

Those interested squeezing out as much performance as possible would 
build with LTO (and static linking), and those applications who cared 
more about independent upgrades would use dynamic linking and non-LTO 
builds. With the extra cost of using DPDK as a shared library 
(-fPIC-compiled code, more expensive TLS accesses etc), I'm guessing 
this is the case already today.

Regards,
	Mattias