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 1FyTMY-0004bC-Fj for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:53:46 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k66Cqbav013454; Thu, 6 Jul 2006 12:52:37 GMT Received: from smtp-out2.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out2.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.5]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k66Cnh2X005854 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2006 12:49:43 GMT Received: from [172.23.170.137] (helo=anti-virus01-08) by smtp-out2.blueyonder.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FyTId-0002br-6w for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:49:43 +0100 Received: from [82.41.57.20] (helo=snowdrop.home) by asmtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1FyTIc-0000pN-Mo for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:49:42 +0100 Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 13:49:39 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags Message-ID: <20060706134939.6ecd7758@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <200607061429.39803@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> References: <200607061252.33028@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <20060706131905.3ba12b49@snowdrop.home> <200607061429.39803@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.3.1 (GTK+ 2.8.19; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id k66Cqbcl013454 X-Archives-Salt: 6810777d-772f-4fae-99c2-487d8840fbf5 X-Archives-Hash: 623cced3e6ba088202f5ad5279a1fea1 On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:29:39 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten=C3=B2" wrote: | On Thursday 06 July 2006 14:19, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > Sounds rather flaky and unreliable... | Sounds rather vague and without arguments. Well, you're assuming that a) everyone's using a C compiler, b) that gcc has the slightest clue what it's doing, c) that the user has no problem using nasty hacks to regain control, d) that this information is only needed at compile time, e) that various gcc internal definitions won't change... You're adding a lot of complexity, and thus room for very weird breakages, to something that doesn't need it. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk --=20 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list