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 1FzFxZ-00079q-R9 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:47:14 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k68Gj4ku021250; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 16:45:04 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 k68Gf1S8008572 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 16:41:02 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 06A1464B19 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2006 16:41:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 18:43:21 +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: <20060708164321.GA7356@gentoo.org> References: <200607061252.33028@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <200607071813.28005.vapier@gentoo.org> <20060707230445.GA3800@gentoo.org> <200607071950.28503.vapier@gentoo.org> <20060708062035.GA3903@gentoo.org> <1152350877.9384.100.camel@lycan.lan> <20060708115132.GA5578@gentoo.org> <1152366384.9384.146.camel@lycan.lan> 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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1152366384.9384.146.camel@lycan.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Archives-Salt: 0ea82fb0-3eb6-4d42-91dd-c03f2a9845fc X-Archives-Hash: 9da1ed3458680db2e5bcfa5e026f447d (Not commenting on the whole message, just parts.) On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 03:46:24PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote: > You can however fix the tree to make sure it will fully build without > those flags, and then talk to Mike again about removing them. I am sure > he might be more willing if it will not steal his time again. I ask again: would such patches be accepted? (Mike stated he would remove stubs once GCC 4.1 is stable -- thanks -- so users wouldn't run into problems often regardless.) > Vanilla, Gentoo patched - they all have bugs which bugzilla have more > than enough of in. Ah yes, I see some that definitely apply to USE=vanilla builds. I'll see if there's anything I can understand. :) > OK, maybe I was just too dense to see it before, or maybe you kept > dancing around the issue. To put it clear (or try at least), your whole > issue currently is that you cannot use a 'Vanilla' gcc (ie without the > stubs) to build everything in the tree ? No, being able to use vanilla GCC as Gentoo's system compiler would be a nice addition, and if it's agreed as a good idea I don't mind helping out with getting it working, but I can live without it. > And not as much the stubs them selfs ? Being able to check software for unofficial compiler flags is for some cases a must. I repeat: two separate issues. They keep getting mixed up here. > I think you understood wrongly. > > If the stubs were to be just removed say tomorrow, and breakage in the > tree is still of such an extend that bugs starts to flood in again, its > not just you that will have to read the mail. If the user is clueless, > then Jakub have to reassign the bug to either toolchain or the package > maintainer. If he could not determine it was due to the missing CFLAG, The error is very clear: cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-fno-stack-protector" Maybe I have a little bit more confidence in people, sorry if that's misplaced. :) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list