Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] riscv: enable HAVE_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION

[Björn Töpel]

Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

[...]

>> So I'm no longer actually sure there's a hang, just something slow.  
>> That's even more of a grey area, but I think it's sane to call a 1-hour 
>> link time a regression -- unless it's expected that this is just very 
>> slow to link?
>
> I dunno, if it was only a thing for allyesconfig, then whatever - but
> it's gonna significantly increase build times for any large kernels if LLD
> is this much slower than LD. Regression in my book.
>
> I'm gonna go and experiment with mixed toolchain builds, I'll report
> back..

I took palmer/for-next (1bd2963b2175 ("Merge patch series "riscv: enable
HAVE_LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION"")) for a tuxmake build with llvm-16:

  | ~/src/tuxmake/run -v --wrapper ccache --target-arch riscv \
  |     --toolchain=llvm-16 --runtime docker --directory . -k \
  |     allyesconfig

Took forever, but passed after 2.5h.

CONFIG_CC_VERSION_TEXT="Debian clang version 16.0.6 (++20230610113307+7cbf1a259152-1~exp1~20230610233402.106)"


Björn