Re: Gentoo vs GNU toolchain (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Replacing cpu-feature USE flags)

["Harald van Dijk" <truedfx@gentoo.org>]

On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 05:12:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 07 July 2006 01:46, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:44:34PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Thursday 06 July 2006 16:14, Harald van Dijk 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.
> > >
> > > you're just griping because i forced ssp/pie regardless of USE=vanilla
> > > ...
> >
> > I didn't mind that you applied ssp/pie patches regardless of
> > USE=vanilla, I did mind that you applied the stub patches with
> > USE="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.
> 
> it was not ignored, i told you the answer was no ... i listened to your 
> request and then i evaluated the situation and deemed at the time to go with 
> what we have now.  see how your usage of "ignored" is incorrect here ?

Actually, you did ignore. The below text refers to something older.

> as Kevin pointed out, the stubs do not affect code generation so i preferred 
> to keep users from breaking themselves
> 
> also, at the time, i told you you could easily work around the stub situation 
> by simply deleting them:
> rm /usr/portage/sys-devel/gcc/files/stubs/*
> and then add sys-devel/gcc/files/stubs/ to your rsync exclude list

Yes, you told me this, before USE=vanilla even existed for gcc. When
there's no implicit claim that installed GCC is official GCC, it's much
less of a problem that it's not. Back then, I never complained that the
installed GCC wasn't the official GCC, only that (a manually installed)
official GCC wasn't a supported compiler. And I did not ask for an
official way to disable the stub patches then, I only asked how I could
do it for my own system.

> once we have 4.1.1 in stable, i'll be happy to update the eclass to not apply 
> the stubs when USE=nossp as the majority of users will no longer be in the 
> situation i referred to earlier

Thanks. I hope that if a similar situation comes up, ebuilds will use
test-flags instead of assuming the option is valid, though.

> > > since gcc-4.0 and below are on the way out, i have no problem changing
> > > this behavior
> > >
> > > 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+
> >
> > 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.)
> 
> you never pointed that patch out to me nor did i notice it, so i dont really 
> see how you could have expected this to be fixed already

I didn't point that out to you, I pointed that out to another of the
toolchain guys. I'm not completely sure who, but I think it was
Halcy0n.

> i'll update cvs when i get a chance

Thanks again.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list