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 1FyyMO-00050G-72 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:59:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k67LvTKm013155; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 21:57:29 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 k67Loxeg011384 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 21:50:59 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 18820647EF for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 21:50:56 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 23:53:13 +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: <20060707215313.GA3713@gentoo.org> References: <200607061252.33028@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <200607061944.34690.vapier@gentoo.org> <20060707054615.GA3257@gentoo.org> <200607071712.21536.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: <200607071712.21536.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 k67LvTMa013155 X-Archives-Salt: bbde06da-e382-46d4-a674-346b651c48b3 X-Archives-Hash: f4b2c739f6ad033287dfe28bfcbf62be On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 05:12:21PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 07 July 2006 01:46, 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 p= atches > > > > don't get appplied, but some do. Plus, gcc[vanilla] isn't a suppo= rted > > > > compiler in Gentoo. > > > > > > you're just griping because i forced ssp/pie regardless of USE=3Dva= nilla > > > ... > > > > 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=20 > > accidentally but ignored when pointed out, or that this was done > > deliberately with a misleading cvs log message. >=20 > it was not ignored, i told you the answer was no ... i listened to your= =20 > request and then i evaluated the situation and deemed at the time to go= with=20 > 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 pref= erred=20 > to keep users from breaking themselves >=20 > also, at the time, i told you you could easily work around the stub sit= uation=20 > 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=3Dvanilla 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=20 > the stubs when USE=3Dnossp as the majority of users will no longer be i= n the=20 > 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 chang= ing > > > 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 cal= led > > "vanilla". (I have commented on that patch long before this thread > > started, so don't think I'm just looking for something to complain ab= out > > now.) >=20 > you never pointed that patch out to me nor did i notice it, so i dont r= eally=20 > 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. --=20 gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list