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 1FyteH-0005Af-MH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 16:57:50 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k67GtssA001661; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:55:54 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 k67GonVV017507 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:50:50 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 007D56430A for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:50:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:53:04 +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: <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> 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: <20060707160009.1c373aea@c1358217.kevquinn.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id k67Gtstw001661 X-Archives-Salt: c8576640-9270-477e-a437-14e788fb9945 X-Archives-Hash: 7e43fe476d6a106f1ec877c420c965e0 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 do= ne > > 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 on > code generation), many builds will simply fail because they expect the > additional flags from ssp, htb etc to be there. 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. > 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 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 > Again, if you don't gave GCC_SPECS defined in your environment then > that patch makes no difference to code generation. Yes, but if GCC_SPECS is defined in the environment, I don't know enough 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. --=20 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list