Re: Default optimization of rust ports

On 2022-09-16 19:42, Mark Millard wrote:
>> Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> escreveu no dia sábado, 10/09/2022
>> à(s) 12:53:
>> 
>>> Daniel Engberg <diizzy_at_FreeBSD.org> wrote on
>>> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2022 09:45:21 UTC :
>>> 
>>>> Since there is work and general interest regarding optimization 
>>>> would
>>>> it
>>>> make sense to make LTO and possibly CODEGEN_UNITS=1 opt-out while we
>>>> still have a fairly manageable amount of ports using Rust?
>>> 
>>> Just making sure I understand the wording:
>>> 
>>> So, in part, you are requesting that the FreeBSD build servers build
>>> using LTO and CODEGEN_UNITS=1? (Those build servers always use the
>>> defaults as I understand. Thus, the defaults are set to what is
>>> desired for use on the build servers, if I understand right. Other
>>> contexts that happen to want something different override some
>>> default(s): opt out of the defaults.)
>>> 
>> . . .
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The suggestion is to make it default for all ports but we can (and
>> should) make it opt-out as not all outcomes might be favourable.
> 
> opt-out per port? Just globally (all such ports at once)?
> 
> (Automatic rebuilds if the opt-out status has changed, at least
> in poudriere?)
> 
>> These are ENV variables so one wouldn't need to touch individual 
>> ports.
> 
> The ports infrastructure does not have OPTIONS at a more global
> level than per-port, as far as I know. (OPTION changes do lead to
> automatic rebuilds, at least in poudriere.)
> 
> Opting-out of a global ENV definition would be to globally unset the 
> ENV
> involved, as far as I can tell.
> 
> But may be I've misunderstood the details being suggested.
> 
> 
> ===
> Mark Millard
> marklmi at yahoo.com

Hi,

You could do something like USES= cargo:noopt to not apply optimization 
in case it breaks something.

Best regards,
Daniel