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 1Fyqnz-0005XV-UP for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:55:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k67DrpxL022811; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:53:51 GMT Received: from MIUMMR0MT09.um.ced.h3g.it ([62.13.171.111]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k67Dol8J003938 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:50:48 GMT Received: from c1358217.kevquinn.com (miumgu0vp03.um.ced.h3g.it [10.216.57.163]) by MIUMMR0MT09.um.ced.h3g.it (MOS 3.5.5-GR) with ESMTP id ALN68737; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:50:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:00:09 +0200 From: "Kevin F. Quinn" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags) Message-ID: <20060707160009.1c373aea@c1358217.kevquinn.com> In-Reply-To: <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> <20060707054615.GA3257@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.3.0 (GTK+ 2.8.12; 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: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_VN=28llueY3dJPAf+6IB+YF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 8597f452-51ec-4532-a6fe-11f08070d44c X-Archives-Hash: 96b93af87f06c90d0ccd59c960100e63 --Sig_VN=28llueY3dJPAf+6IB+YF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 07:46:16 +0200 Harald van D=C4=B3k wrote: > 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. If you take out the stub patches (which incidentally have no impact on code generation), many builds will simply fail because they expect the additional flags from ssp, htb etc to be there. Since they have no impact on code generation, their presence doesn't impact comparisons with a pure upstream release. > > 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 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.) Again, if you don't gave GCC_SPECS defined in your environment then that patch makes no difference to code generation. --=20 Kevin F. Quinn --Sig_VN=28llueY3dJPAf+6IB+YF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFErmjw9G2S8dekcG0RAosiAJ9kxKbeZlGwyKuoD9zBDbM0XitbBwCg7wpf BKcR0rZ77wphKGiAdSGZBss= =GGe1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_VN=28llueY3dJPAf+6IB+YF-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list