Re: git: 06601897e5cd - main - framework: reintroduce the feature enabling code
- In reply to: Daniel Engberg : "Re: git: 06601897e5cd - main - framework: reintroduce the feature enabling code"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 09:07:46 UTC
On 2024-07-13T18:49:27.000+02:00, Daniel Engberg <daniel.engberg.lists@pyret.net> wrote: > On 2024-07-13T16:30:31.000+02:00, Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> > > wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 02:04:48PM GMT, Daniel Engberg wrote: >> >>> On 2024-07-13T08:47:47.000+02:00, Mathieu Arnold >>> >>> <mat@freebsd.org> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 06:11:04AM GMT, Daniel Engberg wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> This changes so LTO option is no longer applied to Rust >>>>> >>>>> (cargo) >>>>> >>>>> ports >>>>> >>>>> BY DEFAULT causing a regresssion, please fix. >>>> >>>> As it has been three months, nobody complained something was >>>> >>>> broken >>>> >>>> so, >>>> >>>> I don't think anything is actually broken. >>>> >>>> LTO as are a few other features like SSP are user facing >>>> >>>> features, >>>> >>>> not a >>>> >>>> porters facing options, it means, it's up to the person doing >>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>> building to choose wether to enable it or not, it is **not** >>>> up >>>> >>>> to >>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>> person porting the software to forcefully enable it. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Mathieu Arnold >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Likely because this pretty much silently went by because it was >>> >>> posted >>> >>> on Phab and you only CCed bapt. It's been enabled since Jan >>> 2023 >>> >>> (https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/Mk/Uses/cargo.mk?id=967022fd812cf67dec264ee4e53bd016b69e7a2b) >>> >>> and tested/discussed here https://reviews.freebsd.org/D36736 >>> >>> before >>> >>> being enabled/committed. I noticed it now while updating a Rust >>> >>> (cargo-based) port. >> >> Mmmm, yes, I know about that, and I agree, this commits reverts >> this >> >> behavior. >> >> Because choosing to build with or without LTO is a user facing >> >> feature, >> >> not a porter facing feature, so, it has to be set by people >> building >> >> the >> >> things, not by the framework or a port. >> >> -- >> >> Mathieu Arnold > > Hi, > > Given that it was commonly agreed upon as a sane default I don't see > > how your opinion in this case weights more. That being said, any > > option could be defined as user facing option some of which are > > already agreed upon as sane such as DOCS and EXAMPLES. > > Best regards, > > Daniel Hi, Jsuit a heads up, given that I haven't recieved any further mail regading this change or further explanation I'll enable LTO again for Cargo ports as agreed upon in https://reviews.freebsd.org/D36736 later today. Best regards, Daniel (diizzyy@)