Re-enable distribution of LTO compiles

1 files changed, 33 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/sys-devel/distcc/distcc-3.4-lto.patch b/sys-devel/distcc/distcc-3.4-lto.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..409454f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/sys-devel/distcc/distcc-3.4-lto.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+From 47a19b96561f42dc216a30fdb4b9e21b89d04278 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Alexey Sheplyakov <asheplyakov@altlinux.org>
+Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:38:06 +0400
+Subject: [PATCH] Revert "Skip distributing LTO cc invocations"
+
+This reverts commit 8dacd28d888210753e9457eb31175d8e2a1c348e.
+The "LTO invocations are not worth distributing" statement is in
+general wrong. GCC generates the (target) machine code for every
+compilation unit even with `-flto` (so it makes sense to distribute
+these). And the whole program analysis is not guaranteed to be
+the bottleneck of the build. As a matter of fact distributing
+LTO compilations reduces the build time of LLVM/clang, GCC, and
+other programs (especially C++ ones).
+
+Closes: #428
+---
+ src/arg.c | 3 ---
+ 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/src/arg.c b/src/arg.c
+index 73ff707f..6ca5130e 100644
+--- a/src/arg.c
++++ b/src/arg.c
+@@ -189,9 +189,6 @@ int dcc_scan_args(char *argv[], char **input_file, char **output_file,
+                 rs_trace("-mtune=native optimizes for local machine; "
+                          "must be local");
+                 return EXIT_DISTCC_FAILED;
+-            } else if (!strcmp(a, "-flto")) {
+-                rs_trace("LTO cc invocations are not worth distributing");
+-                return EXIT_DISTCC_FAILED;
+             } else if (str_startswith("-Wa,", a)) {
+                 /* Look for assembler options that would produce output
+                  * files and must be local.