> So... they just gave up on gcc, and then per the remainder of the blog post spent "3 months" fighting linker behavior to get LTO working on clang? Given that

> So... they just gave up on gcc, and then per the remainder of the blog post spent "3 months" fighting linker behavior to get LTO working on clang? Given that they're trying to align their C++ and Rust build tools -- the latter being based on LLVM -- the lack of interest in solving issues experienced with GCC is understandable. Also, given the complexity of the application and the platform diversity involved spending only "3 months" on such troubles is heroic performance.