From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Fyufp-0000NR-Fh for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:03:29 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k67I1VHZ008309; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:01:31 GMT Received: from mail01.emarketsouth.com (mail01.emarketsouth.com [208.247.233.6]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k67Ht4j6020622 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:55:05 GMT Received: (qmail 21814 invoked by uid 399); 7 Jul 2006 17:59:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO onyx) (64.192.54.4) by mail01.emarketsouth.com with SMTP; 7 Jul 2006 17:59:13 -0000 Subject: Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags) From: Ned Ludd To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20060707165304.GA3255@gentoo.org> References: <200607061252.33028@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <44AD6C8E.8060300@gentoo.org> <20060706201420.GA3845@gentoo.org> <200607061944.34690.vapier@gentoo.org> <20060707054615.GA3257@gentoo.org> <20060707160009.1c373aea@c1358217.kevquinn.com> <20060707165304.GA3255@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:55:03 -0400 Message-Id: <1152294903.8423.20.camel@onyx> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.2.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id k67I1VJN008309 X-Archives-Salt: 91fbd243-18d4-496e-8a99-18df1aba3d73 X-Archives-Hash: d10684de2ddc1c4e89b4b7aa39535212 On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 18:53 +0200, Harald van D=C4=B3k wrote: > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:00:09PM +0200, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 07:46:16 +0200 > > Harald van D=C4=B3k wrote: > >=20 > > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van D=C4=B3k wrote: > > > > > Gentoo's gcc with the vanilla flag isn't the official GCC. Most > > > > > patches don't get appplied, but some do. Plus, gcc[vanilla] isn= 't > > > > > a supported compiler in Gentoo. > > > >=20 > > > > you're just griping because i forced ssp/pie regardless of > > > > USE=3Dvanilla ...=20 > > >=20 > > > I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of > > > USE=3Dvanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with > > > USE=3D"nossp vanilla", and I also didn't like that this was either = done > > > accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done > > > deliberately with a misleading cvs log message. > >=20 > > If you take out the stub patches (which incidentally have no impact o= n > > code generation), many builds will simply fail because they expect th= e > > additional flags from ssp, htb etc to be there. >=20 > That's the point. I mentioned being able to test whether your own > software compiles with a pure GNU toolchain as a desire. Being able to > see whether unofficial compiler options are used is not just a nice > extra, but even necessary for that. >=20 > > Since they have no impact on code generation, their presence doesn't > > impact comparisons with a pure upstream release. > >=20 > > > > since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem > > > > changing this behavior > > > >=20 > > > > besides, since both of these technologies are in mainline gcc now= , > > > > i really dont see how you can continue to gripe with gcc-4.1.1+ > > >=20 > > > I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even i= f > > > it is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would b= e > > > called "vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this > > > thread started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to > > > complain about now.) > >=20 > > Again, if you don't gave GCC_SPECS defined in your environment then > > that patch makes no difference to code generation. >=20 > Yes, but if GCC_SPECS is defined in the environment, I don't know enoug= h > about it to be sure that it interacts properly with -specs command-line > options. Even if it works perfectly, though, the point remains that it > does not belong in a USE=3Dvanilla build. Keep pushing this and the only thing you will end up with is the=20 vanilla flag being removed all together.. You want a pure 100%=20 vanilla(POS) non working toolchain then go download it and=20 compile it yourself. You will soon see why things exist the way=20 they do.. --=20 Ned Ludd Gentoo Linux --=20 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list