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 1FyjBU-0001Q9-1z for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 05:47:24 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k675kLCm007620; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 05:46:22 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k675i3PS007352 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 05:44:03 GMT Received: from gentoo.org (cp237988-a.mill1.nb.home.nl [84.29.235.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC6164395 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 05:44:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 07:46:16 +0200 From: Harald van =?utf-8?Q?D=C4=B3k?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags) Message-ID: <20060707054615.GA3257@gentoo.org> References: <200607061252.33028@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <44AD6C8E.8060300@gentoo.org> <20060706201420.GA3845@gentoo.org> <200607061944.34690.vapier@gentoo.org> 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200607061944.34690.vapier@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id k675kLEa007620 X-Archives-Salt: a3de1a6d-f17e-49f0-985b-fb7baa072497 X-Archives-Hash: 1b3ad466bbd39bd9ce6d6cb130345ef1 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 patch= es > > 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=3Dvanill= a ...=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. > since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem changing = this=20 > behavior >=20 > besides, since both of these technologies are in mainline gcc now, i re= ally=20 > dont see how you can continue to gripe with gcc-4.1.1+ I don't know how much gcc-spec-env.patch can be trusted, and even if it is 100% safe, such patches don't belong in anything that would be 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 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list