From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev-return-2337-arch-gentoo-dev=gentoo.org@gentoo.org>
Received: (qmail 8375 invoked by uid 1002); 14 Apr 2003 15:30:30 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev-subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Received: (qmail 16031 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2003 15:30:24 -0000
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:30:15 -0400
From: Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org>
To: Daniel Armyr <daniel.armyr@home.se>
Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Message-ID: <20030414153015.GA15246@cerberus.oppresses.us>
References: <3E9AD163.308@home.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3E9AD163.308@home.se>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Kernel compiling respecting CFLAGS
X-Archives-Salt: 3caa99a9-c903-4563-b25d-db82896a67f8
X-Archives-Hash: 7edaac71950cadfcc2840af4b8119610

Portage doesn't compile the kernel.

On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:18:59PM +0800, Daniel Armyr wrote:
> After quite a few compiles, It seems to me that the compilation of 
> kernels does not respect CFPAGS or CXXFLAGS settings. Is this true? If 
> so, is there a reason besides "If people compile the kernel with the 
> optimizations they want, their kernel will be mangled into oblivion."?
> 
> //Daniel Armyr
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list