build: introduce ./configure --with-lto
#7408
Conversation
Introduce `--with-lto` configure option to use Link Time Optimization
compiler pass in gcc/clang compilers.
This flag slightly improves performance of C/C++ heavy code:
tls/throughput.js dur="5" type="buf" size="2": ./out/Release/node-flto: 6.1295 ./out/Release/node: 5.6876 ....... 7.77%
tls/throughput.js dur="5" type="buf" size="1024": ./out/Release/node-flto: 1567 ./out/Release/node: 1455 ........ 7.70%
tls/throughput.js dur="5" type="buf" size="1048576": ./out/Release/node-flto: 4167.8 ./out/Release/node: 4026.7 . 3.50%
tls/throughput.js dur="5" type="asc" size="2": ./out/Release/node-flto: 5.5664 ./out/Release/node: 5.0363 ...... 10.52%
tls/throughput.js dur="5" type="asc" size="1024": ./out/Release/node-flto: 1462.2 ./out/Release/node: 1336.8 .... 9.38%
tls/throughput.js dur="5" type="asc" size="1048576": ./out/Release/node-flto: 3947.5 ./out/Release/node: 3847.4 . 2.60%
tls/throughput.js dur="5" type="utf" size="2": ./out/Release/node-flto: 5.5544 ./out/Release/node: 5.0786 ....... 9.37%
tls/throughput.js dur="5" type="utf" size="1024": ./out/Release/node-flto: 1328.5 ./out/Release/node: 1255.7 .... 5.80%
tls/throughput.js dur="5" type="utf" size="1048576": ./out/Release/node-flto: 3051.1 ./out/Release/node: 2985.1 . 2.21%
See: nodejs#7400
|
It appears to be breaking I wonder if addons would still work just fine? |
|
hmm. side effects are weird. Nothing should pop up really.... Having this has no harm though. If that holds true, LGTM. |
Fishrock123
added
c++
|
btw, this fails to link for me when using gcc ( EDIT: figured out what’s going wrong, I had to set |
| @@ -290,6 +291,13 @@ | |||
| ], | |||
| 'ldflags!': [ '-rdynamic' ], | |||
| }], | |||
| ['node_use_lto=="true"', { | |||
| 'conditions': [ [ 'clang==1', { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you put the condition on a separate line?
|
|
|
@indutny .. what's the status on this one? |
|
@jasnell seems to be breaking profiler tests, and the effects may be local to only OS X. Not sure if we want it at this time. |
|
Ok. do you want to keep it open to work on later or close? |
|
@jasnell I would keep it open, the conflicts are not going to be too hard to resolve later on. |
rvagg
force-pushed
the
master
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c133999
to
83c7a88
Compare
|
ping @indutny ... any updates on this? |
|
@indutny By the way, for me this seems to work now. Setting I have a rebased version at d6b510c (resolving the conflict here is trivial), CI results @ https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit/7653/. Some of the CI hosts ran into the same problem I had, but the OS X tests look a bit worrying: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-commit-osx/7615/nodes=osx1010/console |
| @@ -297,6 +297,11 @@ parser.add_option('--with-lttng', | |||
| dest='with_lttng', | |||
| help='build with Lttng (Only available to Linux)') | |||
|
|
|||
| parser.add_option('--with-lto', | |||
| action='store_true', | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tiny nit: It would be better we passed default=False as one of the arguments to add_option.
|
I'm still not sure if we should pursue this... @addaleax except for the build failures, does it provide any measurable performance benefit for you? |
|
@indutny I can try to run some benchmarking later, but my personal experience would be that generally LTO is worth it. |
|
Closing due to lack of further progress. We can reopen later if necessary |
Checklist
make -j4 test(UNIX) orvcbuild test nosign(Windows) passesAffected core subsystem(s)
build
Description of change
build: introduce
./configure --with-ltoIntroduce
--with-ltoconfigure option to use Link Time Optimizationcompiler pass in gcc/clang compilers.
This flag slightly improves performance of C/C++ heavy code:
See: #7400
R= @bnoordhuis @nodejs/collaborators