RE: mainline build failure due to 281d0c962752 ("fortify: Add Clang support")

[David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>]

From: Nick Desaulniers
> Sent: 22 June 2022 23:40
....
> > We don't actually take full advantage of that, because we do end up
> > doing a real "build" of an empty file, so "cc1" does actually get
> > executed, but even then it's done fairly efficiently with 'vfork()'.
> > That "cc-option" part of the kernel build is actually noticeable
> > during configuration etc, and clang is *much* slower because of how it
> > is built.
> >
> > See
> >
> >     time clang -Werror -c -x c /dev/null
> >
> > and compare it with gcc. And if you want to see a really *big*
> > difference, pick a command line option that causes an error because it
> > doesn't exist..
> 
> Looking at a profile, there's a lot of stupid stuff we're doing.  We
> can probably get faster "at doing nothing." See
> https://gist.github.com/nickdesaulniers/81a87ffa784c13d0bf60f60b1d54651b
> for the profile and my commentary/initial thoughts.
> 
> >
> > I really wish clang wasn't so much noticeably slower. It's limiting
> > what I do with it, and I've had other developers say the same.
> 
> We can do better.  I'll keep pushing on this up my chain of command.
> That statement stands in stark contrast to the below:

The slow startup must also make a big difference to anything
that uses autoconf.
That tends to run a lot of compiles of trivial code just to
find out that the system is 'normal'.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)