[ajross]

Yeah, but to be fair the work to actually enable LTO was very significant (at least as far as we outside the community could see via stuff like the blog post here) and involved a ton of toolchain-specific hackery and work with the clang upstream.

Given that same level of effort (c.f. the article we're discussing) it seems like you could have done as well or better by moving to a more recent gcc instead. Or better, by working with both at coming up with a portable way to get LTO working.

I'm not really concerned with what you use to build (I mean, you have to pick some compiler at the end of the day), just with what seems to be "needlessly tight coupling" between clang/llvm and Firefox in a way that hurts the interoperable toolchain ecosystem.

[froydnj]

What are you referring to by "a ton of toolchain-specific hackery" and "a portable way to get LTO working"? It seems like there are very specific things you have in mind, but I'm unclear what bits of work you're referencing. Unless you're thinking of the cross-language LTO work, which is still in progress and is of course clang/llvm-specific? I'd love to see that feature work with GCC, but it's simply not feasible at the present time.

Regardless, that feature being enabled when you're using suitable versions of clang/llvm/rustc doesn't preclude using LTO with other compilers.