Comment # 7 on bug 1133254 from Martin Li��ka

(In reply to Aaron Puchert from comment #5)
> (In reply to Martin Li��ka from comment #4)
> > That's not true, LTO creates a faster binaries with LTO.
> Of course it does, I'm just suspecting it won't be much faster. I'm not
> doubting the merits of LTO, although I personally prefer Clang's ThinLTO
> because of the smaller resource usage, and I hope that GCC will offer
> something similar sometime in the future.

We're not planning to do that. We believe LTO is the right way and we've
significantly reduced memory footprint in GCC9 release. Details can be seen
here:
http://hubicka.blogspot.com/2018/12/firefox-64-built-with-gcc-and-clang.html

> 
> > > In addition, LLVM builds already take very long, and even just ThinLTO is
> > > going to make that worse.
> > 
> > For now, I would not make the build even longer.
> 
> I'm not sure if the "lamb" machines all have the same hardware, but the
> current build in devel:tools:compiler takes ~10000s, while with ThinLTO it
> takes ~15000s. I should compare the build times on the same machine though
> to be sure.