From 2805a6784fc658c4bc5de944bb8a9d70b3531e65 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Quentin Gliech Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 18:26:26 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Expand the comment on why we're fine with thin LTO Co-Authored-By: Eric Eastwood --- Cargo.toml | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Cargo.toml b/Cargo.toml index b4b1f7712..d9e1dfbc8 100644 --- a/Cargo.toml +++ b/Cargo.toml @@ -746,7 +746,9 @@ version = "3.1.0" [profile.release] # This is not the most performant build we could possibly do, but other # optimisations like `codegen-units = 1` and fat LTO are quite expensive on -# compilation time, with relatively modest advantages over just thin LTO +# compilation time, with relatively modest perf advantages over just thin LTO +# (we saw 3-5% perf difference) and we'd rather optimize for compilation time +# at the moment. lto = "thin" # A few profile opt-level tweaks to make the test suite run faster